A PHILOSOPHY OF TRAINING
The fire service has been emphasizing the importance of quality training in recent years and has made great strides, especially with regard to training facilities, which have included the establishment of fire schools, fire colleges, and the National Fire Academy. Training facilities run the gamut from abandoned buildings, which, when properly prepared, can be used for ladder and forcible entry practices, to the multimillion-dollar, wellequipped, and amply staffed fire schools of the larger cities and county fire departments.
But truly effective fire service training encompasses, in addition to training facilities, facets that extend well beyond drills and courses. Among them are the quality of the learning experience, which is determined by the instructor’s enthusiasm for teaching and ability to teach; course content and presentation; and a working environment managed by qualified, contemporary officers who provide an atmosphere marked by fairness, professional pride, dedication, and that often hard-to-achieve balance between tradition and innovation. Such an environment fosters a personal desire to achieve and succeed as well as pride in the department and the fire service.
THE TEACHING COMPONENT
Unfortunately, sometimes time, effort, and money are wasted because the most important element of a quality training program —an effective teacher —is missing. Too often, the first-line supervisor or the shift or company officer assigned to teach is not interested in or adapted to teaching even the most basic firefighting skills.
Every firefighter has the right to he trained as a complete, first-grade firefighter. A firefighter is prepared to make the decision to place his/her life in jeopardy only after having been given quality, comprehensive training in the diverse skills of the profession. Individuals being taught a trade usually are given little or no decisionmaking responsibility until they learn that trade, usually through training in an apprenticeship program. Much money is spent on these programs to achieve the end result: skilled, confident. and capable personnel.
On the surface, the statement “Every firefighter has the right to be trained as a complete, first-grade firelighter” may seem to be simple fact, but it takes on added meaning as you delve more deeply into the training issue. For example, learning rates vary from individual to individual; fire service teachers, therefore, must be capable of and willing to adapt teaching methods to the various needs of the students if every firefighter’s needs are to be met.
The degree of effectiveness of an inservice training program can be predicted by the emphasis placed on teaching the teacher of that program. The average company officer is selected for his/her abilities in many fields, but rarely for the ability to teach. In positions where teaching in-service training programs is part of the responsibilities. teaching ability should be one of the criteria for consideration for that position. Even the most elaborate and comprehensive training program would be ineffective if the first-line officer could not “put it across,”
The art of teaching can be taught and should be a major part of all officer training programs. Standing before an audience of peers in front of a video camera is not teacher training. This teaching approach is similar to the old notion that throwing one into deep water teaches one to sw im.
Quality, comprehensive training fosters in firefighters confidence in their abilities and in the tools and equipment they will be expected to operate. The focus of this training can be summed up in one word, often repeated for emphasis: “basics, basics, basics.” I have seen good training programs, put together with much effort and thought, fail because they did not include periodic reviews of the basics. While advanced fire-related and academic courses are important as a means to an end, they are not an end in themselves.
At the other end of the trainingcurriculum spectrum, overemphasis on reviewing the “basics” can cause students to lose interest. This is common in situations where officers are poorly trained in advanced subjects and are incapable of breaking down complex topics and teaching them component by component. It is human nature to want to remain within the comfortable realm wherein a teacher’s knowledge exceeds that of his/her students. The principle at work here is that the most effective way to learn is to teach. 1 know many who have come away from a teaching experience knowing a great deal more about the subject than they brought to it.
Obviously, a balance is needed. That balance is exemplified by the language “trained as a complete firstgrade firefighter.” The general ingredients of this all-around employee must remain just that, general. Hydrant person, hose person, nozzle person, ladder person, rescue person, and driver/operator are the generally accepted titles that make up a firstgrade firefighter. Training must be accomplished in all these areas. A strict seniority system may preclude training everyone to do every job; in my opinion, this is one of the serious limitations of such a system. One might say it rewards incompetence. One’s mobility should be determined by ability, not by age, longevity, or other extraneous considerations.
It could be said that the promotion system followed in some fire departments illustrates the Peter Principle, as espoused by Dr. Lawrence J. Peter: One will rise to his or her level of incompetence. Say, for example, a very good firefighter is promoted to driver/operator and proves to be totally inept in that new position. That individual most likely will remain in the new position anyway, because there is no mechanism in the system for moving down as there is for moving up. That firefighter has reached his/her level of incompetence. If, on the other hand, that firefighter proved to be a competent driver/operator, he/she later might be promoted to the rank of officer. Once there, however, even that individual realizes that the new position demands abilities beyond his/her capacity. Again, it is improbable that he/she would ask for a demotion.
THE DEDICATION COMPONENT
Given that an individual has the ability and experience to succeed as an officer, his/her dedication also must be assessed. This assessment should encompass various levels: dedication to the fire service, to the department, to family, and even to one’s self. In situations where candidates’ credentials are comparable, the degree of dedication may emerge as the critical criterion for selecting officer candidates. The officer candidate does not have the same right to be trained as the firefighter does. The responsibilities in these situations are allocated differently. Training a firefighter entails a greater effort from superiors than from subordinates; training an officer, on the other hand, swings the pendulum in the other direction: The aspirant must make a greater effort than the superior. You cannot be “made a good officer”; you must want to become one.
Not every able and dedicated firefighter can become an officer, however. The Table of Organization generally determines the officer complement of a department. To further refine the selection process, therefore. the degree of the candidate’s dedication and perseverance, as noted above, can be added to the criteria for promotion.
Unfortunately, in some departments training programs place firefighters and officer candidates in the same training sessions. This system produces undesirable side-effects. The singling out of a firefighter by superiors for advanced training demoralizes the other firefighters in the department. There is no such adversereaction, however, when officer candidates attend officer school or classes on their own initiative and their own time.
A WAY OUT OF THE “NOT-ENOUGH-TIME” DILEMMA
Not having enough time is a vexing problem to company officers. If they must prepare and conduct drills for probationary firefighters, maintain the efficiency of nonprobationary firefighters, and provide advanced training for officer candidates, little or no time is left for normal company duties.
The quantity-vs.-quality syndrome. Training programs often suffer from the quantity-vs.-quality syndrome. Many departments require (and rigidly enforce) that a minimum number of drills be held in a specified time period (week or month, for example). In many cases, however, no standard for measuring quality is implemented; it is assumed that frequent presentations guarantee absorption. One of the major problems with this syndrome is that insisting on quantity sometimes forces company officers to “throw the drills together.” When saddled with minimums, the tendency is to produce the minimum; only the quantity is uppermost in mind. A thorough, comprehensive drill on even the most basic subject takes thought and preparation. How can you prepare such a drill session with the specter of “quantity” hanging overhead like an axe?
The officer can resolve this dilemma by using a little imagination. Assuming that a quality in-service training program exists within the department, a division of labor can be a way to overcome time restraints. Officer candidates, for example, can be assigned to upgrade the skills of probationary firefighters while the officer develops a course of advanced study for officer candidates.
This approach keeps firefighters efficient by applying a standardized, department-approved training program presented by superiors and eliminates the chance that animosity might develop because senior firefighters were chosen to conduct training sessions. Resentment is a possibility whether the senior firefighters are chosen on the basis of tenure or knowledge. It can develop, for example, when a department member selected on the basis of longevity tries to teach an individual with a broader scope of knowledge. Conversely, older personnel may resent the “bright, young person” conducting a drill session.
Individuals being upgraded presents an entirely different situation. Using an officer candidate benefits the trainer and the trainee. The trainee is exposed to the positive influence and enthusiasm of an individual whose ability and dedication are wellknown. This approach helps to foster dedication. The trainer benefits because he/she can demonstrate knowledge as well as gain valuable teaching experience. As previously stated, the ability to teach is not a prerequisite for promotion, but it is so important that perhaps it should be.
Staying current. Officers must be current to be effective trainers. They cannot rely solely on knowledge acquired in the past, for each day brings new problems for the fire service. The time gained by delegating responsibilities can be used to prepare material for officer candidates as well as to assimilate new knowledge to strengthen an officer’s position. Too often, this factor is forgotten, but unless officers make an effort to stay current, their effectiveness will diminish.
Staying current presents officers with a most interesting problem: The majority of young people joining the fire service today are products of a better educational system than that attended by the average officer.
The greatest difference I perceive between the younger members of the fire service and their officers is the former’s ability to read and absorb what they read. I am sure every officer can think of at least one individual under his/her authority who is distinguished by the number and quality of questions he/she asks at drills or by the insightful knowledge he/she has of department rules or the contents of the current labor contract. Trying to teach these new members while relying on experience alone could cause the officer to lose control of the drill session and the respect of other department members. Eventually, other department members may be going to that individual instead of the officer with their questions.
My fire service career spans more than 40 years. When I first became interested in the fire service, fewer than 10 comprehensive textbooks were widely available to those with a desire to read. My personal library since has outgrown one large bookcase and is threatening to outgrow’ another. No organized courses were offered at the high school or college level. Today, more and more of an officer’s subordinates are attending college and learning things that individual experience alone does not teach. Senior officers above company level are more affected by this “gap in intellect” because they do not know’ it exists. A company officer in daily contact with these young people, vigorous people with searching minds, readily discerns the gap; but senior officers, insulated from these young people by levels of rank, are prone to discount its existence. Herein lies the root cause of labor problems, poor morale, and the lack of dedication among the newcomers to the profession.
Senior officers must make time to keep up with what is current. Public service, unfortunately, is such that if you are seen sitting reading a book, the taxpayers naturally assume that you are wasting valuable time and their tax dollars. Perhaps we are partly to blame for this attitude because of our failure to communicate with the public. To the senior officer, I say, “Closet yourself, if necessary, but for the sake of your department, stay current.”
TRADITION
Training also has failed to address the aspect of tradition on a meaningful level. This omission has fostered the often heard question: “What is the matter with young people today? They have no dedication or sense of tradition.” You must know that tradition exists, however, before you can subscribe to it. 1 know of no training program that has integrated into it the history of the fire service. I had been a firefighter for some time before I read The Romance of Fire Fighting by Holzman or Fires and Tire Fighters by Morris. I gained a new perspective from these books and came to appreciate more fully the tradition of the fire service. 1 also came to understand part of the reason for the public’s poor attitude toward firefighters (such as when, in days past, it was a common sight in many areas to see firefighters sleeping on chairs outside the firehouse between calls), and 1 also gained a new sense of pride by reading the accomplishments of our predecessors.
I taught a number of pump courses and included in them the history of the fire service. I doubt that the smattering of history I presented instilled any great pride in my students, but it usually got the first class off to a good start, and who knows? It may have whet their appetites for more knowledge in this area. Do your associates or, for that matter, do you know that the quality of fire service Caesar provided for the citizens of the Roman Empire was so high that ii was without rival or change for more than a thousand years? Do you know how many significant changes the notorious 1666 London fire wrought in the fire service?
Other aspects of the fire service’s history—such as fire departments’ fighting over water supplies and mutual-aid services and the frequent failure to initiate a command system on the fireground—do not foster pride; they serve instead to help us avoid making the same mistakes that tarnished our past.
Our young people will support tradition only when they are taught that it exists, and they will develop dedication only when they know the truths that only history can teach. Let us therefore not condemn them for lack of dedication or disrespect for tradition until we present them with supportable evidence of the traditions and acts of dedication that are worthy of respect.
The fire service for too long has labored under the old adage “Experience is the best teacher.” It instead should keep in mind that “Experience is the hardest kind of teacher because it gives the test first and the lesson afterward.”
If you look around your jurisdiction and see a number of vacant lots on which buildings once stood, you may want to take a good look at your department’s training program. It may be that the quality of your drills matches the quantity of your major losses.
