Hi,
I guess everyone has received the same email as i had yesterday, telling us how to give out the new badges and certs?
In keeping with the National consistant approach that SDG want us all to follow, can some one please put together a National statement that explains to a child they have not actually completed all the outcomes listed on the front, even though it says they can. Can it also explain to parents the actual level of ability of their child, explain to secondary schools who insist that students have L2 before they ride to school that the badge is for acheivement and not the cert.
Word all this in a statement that does not upset, offend or give false information. I am a Bikeability instructor not an expert in writing statements like this.
Are council road safety depts (who fund Bikeability across the country) aware that we should be giving L2 certs to children describing they CAN do all the listed outcomes, when actually they cannot. If a child is killed or seriously injured after being given a L2 cert, when they could not acheive the outcomes, who is taking responsibility for this?
This new approach is barking mad. Why can we not give L1 badges and certs to riders who acheive L1 outcomes and give L2 badges and certs to those who acheive L2 outcomes? This way there is no grey area of ability, parents should know what their child can acheive and schools can know for sure that they are letting suitably competent riders bring their bikes to school.
What about L3, is this an attendance course as well??
If you disagree with this rather long post, then please suggest a better way.
Thanks,
@user6719
Hi,
I guess everyone has received the same email as i had yesterday, telling us how to give out the new badges and certs?
In keeping with the National consistant approach that SDG want us all to follow, can some one please put together a National statement that explains to a child they have not actually completed all the outcomes listed on the front, even though it says they can. Can it also explain to parents the actual level of ability of their child, explain to secondary schools who insist that students have L2 before they ride to school that the badge is for acheivement and not the cert.
Word all this in a statement that does not upset, offend or give false information. I am a Bikeability instructor not an expert in writing statements like this.
Are council road safety depts (who fund Bikeability across the country) aware that we should be giving L2 certs to children describing they CAN do all the listed outcomes, when actually they cannot. If a child is killed or seriously injured after being given a L2 cert, when they could not acheive the outcomes, who is taking responsibility for this?
This new approach is barking mad. Why can we not give L1 badges and certs to riders who acheive L1 outcomes and give L2 badges and certs to those who acheive L2 outcomes? This way there is no grey area of ability, parents should know what their child can acheive and schools can know for sure that they are letting suitably competent riders bring their bikes to school.
What about L3, is this an attendance course as well??
If you disagree with this rather long post, then please suggest a better way.
Thanks,