Does the humble C&G-2391 syllabus need to be updated?

What do EAS and EAL & AM2 stand for? Never heard of em, and why is 2391 split into 3? Sounds like a money maker to me - all surplus and needless fluff

whjohnson said:

Sounds like a money maker to me

Personally can’t dispute that. The imperatives for this and similar qualifications stem from several quarters and has allowed me to shop for groceries in MandS for many years!

Sergio Fernandez said:

Does the humble C&G-2391 syllabus need to be updated?

Good question. However, before we consider an update, it might be reasonable to assess what currently exists. The 2391 is said to be level 3. I would dispute that. It may have been intended to equate to the complexity of an A-level but I would contend it is well below O-level status. And that is where it needs to be! 

I have no wish to be patronising, but it has been my experience over the 30 years I have been in part-time tutoring that the vast majority of installation electricians have little understanding of the fundamental principles and regulatory requirements that underpin the electrical systems they are working on, let alone the basic maths and electrical theory that would be needed to deal with them.

The reason for that is simple, most operatives install wiring systems and equipment. After all, that is what they are required to do. Those operatives are a precious commodity, they are the ones who we need to work steel conduit, trunking, galvanized tray and the like on a winters day, they are the ones who wrestle SWA cables into main panels, they are the ones who use infinite patience to install hundreds of ceiling roses and sockets  in a housing development.
They are also the ones who are far more important to society than those who seek to dig into their pockets for their hard earned cash to fund high-cost training that results in qualifications of dubious worth.

I throughly understand the need to upskill and the importance of keeping abreast of technical developments in one’s area of work. I also understand the reasonable argument for mandatory technical competence (MTC). However, no one could persuade me that the candidates that pass through my 2391 course, even when it is pitched one day per week over seven weeks with homework in between are suddenly competent to undertake inspection and testing, particularly of the periodic type. It would be equally difficult to persuade me that two days on a PV or battery course would be of any durable worth.

So, yes, maybe it is time for a complete review of the 2391, maybe it could be extended to cover other topical elements, but  as far as the new MTCs are concerned, the die has already been cast!. 

lyledunn said:

Those operatives are a precious commodity, they are the ones who we need to work steel conduit, trunking, galvanized tray and the like on a winters day, they are the ones who wrestle SWA cables into main panels, they are the ones who use infinite patience to install hundreds of ceiling roses and sockets  in a housing development.

[and in a competent consistent manner maintaining the basic standards we expect] 

Yes. These are the 'giants' upon who's shoulders we stand. Rock paper scissors all the way [or scissors paper stone if you associate that way] CEng/IEng is useless without the hands on capabilities here. The bootstrap hierarchy.

lyledunn said:

The 2391 is said to be level 3. I would dispute that. It may have been intended to equate to the complexity of an A-level but I would contend it is well below O-level status.

It certainly takes a lot longer to study for an A-level.

I did not find the written assessment particularly challenging, but the practical certainly was. It was not so much a matter of remembering what to do, but doing it quickly enough. An experienced electrician would whizz through it, but if an electrician has managed to become sufficiently experienced without the C&G, why do it at all?

There is an interesting thought here, that perhaps we are not teaching and testing the right things, or at least are not being honest about what  various courses and bits of paper really  qualify you for.

There is no doubt in my mind that best folk for the roles of the "hands on" and the "brains on" are not normally interchangeable, and having worked in a University research dept,  for some years in the past, I can say (without naming names) that there are many otherwise brilliant academics who I would not want to be anywhere near something  that required any hand-eye co-ordination at all !

Not so much ' could this person run a post-office?' as 'could this person wire a plug? '  - and the answer is "probably not" more often than you might think. There is sort of a problem with the language we use for qualifications as well - the usual moan is that the chap with the van with "engineer" on it is usually really a 'fitter', but there is also a problem of too many universities that turn out 'engineers' with a degree who cannot design, let alone act as a design authority or evaluate  the design or construction work of others, partially due to being taught by those who don't fo that side of things very well  either.

So if we are not careful the system creates folk with mis-matched qualifications who are still unfit for any role without a lot of further fettling, and I'd not be surprised to hear that is a problem at almost all craft and academic levels.

Coming back to the OP I'm not sure that creating a complex tree of permissible bits of paper that prove some equivalent competence is a great  way forward either. Equally I'm not sure then how you best prove someone's ability at all, unless you have an example of thing their work on the thing they are supposed to be good at to look at.

In that sense, I suggest a portfolio of previous jobs and experience is as good as any - but then beware the hundreds of jobs that are all the same, is not the same as a few jobs that are exploring the more difficult corners of the job - 1000 ceiling roses is no guarantee of a well fitted short length of pyro.... but for a general can-do and reading before starting sort of person it might be. There is always the risk that showing work on a big job means 'was carried by the rest of the team' or ' Iead the team from the front' and it is hard to know afterwards.

I'm lucky, I have a job for which on paper I am not especially well qualified, but I have been doing it long enough and well enough that no-one asks, but that is no help to a newcomer. We must be careful, having climbed the metaphorical ladder, not to pull it up with us, so no-one can follow.

Mike. 

I just look at the myriad of acronyms surrounding schemes, course providors and standards quangos and wonder what the hell they actually contribute to the industry other than to serve as vehicles for chaos. Back in the day, City & Guilds were the only game in town, everyone knew what they did and what course success meant, and the industry was all the better for it. Compare that with what we have now. I've never heard of some of these organisations. I have no idea why they exist, or what they actually do, other than relieve an ever shrinking number of tradespeople of their money.

“ I wonder how many Electrical tutors there are in FE colleges in the UK?  Of those how many are fully qualified as an Electrician according to the EAS so that they are qualified to teach the courses?  I suspect it is highly possible that some tutors may need to sit there AM2 and/or produce a NVQ portfolio.“

I acknowledge your points, and can add that at the colleges that I have worked for, one used a non-NVQ/AM2 experienced electrician and one fully qualified (me).  
At another college, all lecturers are Gold card holders and experienced, again one was me. 
Both colleges have/had good results and I believe useful learning took place improving the skills and knowledge of the electricians. I believe this was more about vetting the candidates, ensuring that they were working in the trade and appropriate experience and Level 3.

To note that I believe C and G are updating qualifications, but I don’t have timelines. I think that  when hosting the 2391 and other short courses, we are updating skills, and filling in gaps of knowledge. With practical and theoretic learning either forgotten or never learnt in the first place. 

It is good to hear that City and Guilds are looking at the Electrician Curriculum and making updates to the Syllabi.  Hopefully EAL are doing the same.  

Good teachers are invaluable and the UK Electrical industry and Academia need to look after these people and dare I say it remunerate them higher.

I agree.  It is a bit like BT (British Telecom) with so many acronyms they have to issue there staff documentation to understand them.  a few example below

AR: Action Required.
BAU: Business As Usual.
ADSL: Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line

Chris Pearson said:

An experienced electrician would whizz through it, but if an electrician has managed to become sufficiently experienced without the C&G, why do it at all?

Valid point.  The issue is that EAS (Electrotechnical Assessment Specification) is setting criteria of definitions for roles.  Thus some people may no longer be able to call themselves an Electrician without having a C&G-2391 for example.