My review of the PSIA national Academy - Page 5

First of all I'd like to say that the I think the level things are retarded but I'd say if we were using levels, instructors should be at least level nines on most scales. On this scale which is one of the best I'd seen I think instructors should be at least Top Level Eight.
Six is really low, instructors are ski professionals and should ski like them.

It was only last season when I was last taking lessons. I took multi week lessons at my local hill through a small concession school. When I was in the class I always thought that my instructor was a rockstar (I still think that). And thinking back on that I realize that that was an important part of the lessons for me, seeing my instructor exhibiting near flawless technique on true expert terrain in every snow condition was very inspiring. It always gave me something to look up to and since we were just free skiing rather than doing drills or anything I was always watching him and either subconsciously or consciously trying to emulate him. If he was not a "rockstar" the lessons would not have been the same. And since when we teach our students usually end up trying emulate our technique a bad technique can lead to students developing bad technique.

I never said their ski skills were poor, I stated that there are skiers who are just most comfortable and competent on groomers versus off piste. There are many many skiers who are perfectly content skiing groomers exclusively and some can arc great turns and they can teach beginners that is not hard to understand.

I think what you say would be ideal, but the facts are that there are many many instructors that teach today in the level 6 to level 7 range. Sadly I have seen instructors in the level 5 - 6 range as well.

I get way too many guests coming to lessons, who've been told to "lean" against the fronts of their boots. I figure their instructors are the ones who are only comfortable on groomers (and certainly aren't skiing at even level 7 IMO).

Agreed.

The GOATS System

Level, schmevel. I really get tired of the arbitrary and often self ranking allocation of "levels" to people's skiing.

Let me propound again my GOATS (Get Out and Totally Ski) System:

1) If you can get down a double black without leaving double black in your shorts,

2) wave at the mountain goats on the way down,

3) and not get yourself or anyone else in trouble,

4) then you are "good enough" (for a definition of "good enough" see Garrison Keilor).

5) Anything else is just bragging.

Finally, there are some people out there who are pretty darn good skiers. If you get paid to ski for a living you have nothing to complain about and shouldn't be worried about levels either.

As they say at the A-basin (the Legend) Patrol Shack, " Ski with the Goats !"

PS. I understand PSIA might have a problem or two with the GOATS system, and I feel their pain. Anyone who is patient enough to take on out of shape executives, their Bogner-clad out of shape wives, and their muley kids deserves our sympathy and understanding, not ridicule.

Does your average tennis pro hit the ball when you're taking a lesson like they're playing centre court at Wimbledon? Probably not. My guess is that they're hitting in the way they would like you to. (Do I have to spell out the analogy?) Unfortunately, most of the time the public sees an instructor in uniform (at many resorts), they're teaching. When free-skiing, they're in their civies.

At the mountain where I taught this past season, everyone called us "poodles."

I will normally tell the shop tech that I'm an instructor, just so they will believe me when I tell them to sharpen my skis tip to tail. That, and the sixpack I drop off at the same time usually means they listen to what I say.

This is what is wrong with taking stuff out of context. If the student is not maintinaing contact with the front of the boots, then an instructor may tell him or her anything to get that contact. 95% of what I tell students to do has nothing to do with what good skiing looks like but has everything to do with moving the students to a better position to ski. If a student's head is back he might need to stickout his butt (advice I recently received). Does that mean sticking my butt out would be great skiing- no. It means that in attempting to stick my buttt out I will get into a more evenly fesed stance. If a student really does stick his butt out, then maybe we would tell him to move his head back. We don't want the head back, we jjst want a balanced stance. so, if student had een told to "lean on his boots," the reason may have been that an isntructor perceived that attemting to lean on the boots would be a good adjustment for that student.

Yep, to me, "lean forward" means "don't leanback". I think it was Ant just a few posts ago or maybe on another thread that was saying not to use "don'ts" in your lesson. It seems to me that is what she is encountering here.

I think many people on this site (and others) use the term PSIA far too loosely, as a monniker for any particular ski school.

I also think you are all giving the general public way too much credit for even knowing PSIA exists! Sure those who frequent this site (or others) will surely be aware. But the average punter out on the hill? Not likely!

When they see an instr skiing poorly, they do not say "Gee, PSIA has crummy instrs." They say, "Gee, XXX Mtn has crummy instrs". Most are completely oblivious to the fact there is a connection between XXX Mtn and PSIA. Nor do they care!

So to lay much of the blame which seems so prolific here, on PSIA's doorstep, is mostly unwarranted. I will agree that PSIA could, and should, be more proactive in many dimensions of instr training and other instr issues.

But the bottom line is still the individual ski schools, themselves! They have the most direct responsibility for the standard of the instrs they hire, and to the quality of the training they receive after being hired. PSIA does not hire instrs for each area, nor do they create, or execute an on going/ daily training program for these areas. So- how is PSIA responsible?

That is somewhat a fair statement that PSIA can be more proactive, but the so-called "prolific blame" statement is somewhat of an exaggeration. Much of blame that PSIA receives is largely due to the fact that many to most ski schools training curriculum's are run and led by PSIA Examiners and influenced largely by people who are very active in the PSIA community who work FOR THE SKI SCHOOLS.

Your first statement is spot on, the individual ski school is responsible for the hiring, however if they use PSIA representatives for their training then the responsibility is shared IMO. Yes the ski schools that have stellar reputations are largely due to the ski schools commitments to their clientèle and their staff to be great and show consistency. Schools like Taos, Snowbird, Aspen/Snowmass, Stowe etc. have not only great training, but a culture of wanting to be great and a passion that trickles all the way down to the least experienced teacher. You ask how PSIA is responsible, the answer goes back to what I stated above, if upper level PSIA people are delegated to the training responsibilities then PSIA shares the responsibility of what is being produced...period.

If you're wearing the colors of your ski school then all you relfect on is your self and your ski school. It is the individual ski school that invites PSIA folks in for clinics and testing. It is with the contact with the examiners and cliniciians that current skiing movements become passed on. If the ski schools don't keep up with current and correct movements they become islands that would drift off in time and not be good examples of current PSIA skiing.

It's up to the ski schools to stay current and motivate their instructors to do the same.

Many clinics are not manditory . I go to every one that is held and attend daily clinics by our trainers and more often whenever I can
Anyone who aspires to be a good instructor and improve themselves should do the same . But actually it seerms the same core group of devoted skier/instructors attend as much as I do .
It's up to the ski school to make these available and it's up to the instructors to take advantage of them

The schedules of local events are posted by our regional office. I can attend at nearby hills if they offer something that would be worthwhile to attend. I have recieved prep clinics as well as additional childrens instruction and certification by going to another resort.
PSIA is a loosely formed organization and only when you test ,go to outside clinics or bring in PSIA clinicians do you find that your school has strayed from what PSIA wishes to promote.

Guilt by association

VSP, you are clearly on target with ths post. PSIA is an association for instructors that teach in many different ski schools and at many different levels. The "pros" not skiing powder at Snowbird could be from small midwestern and eastern ski hills, and attending a clinic to obtain required training to maintain accreditation or go to the next level (perhaps level I?). In every case, their skiing reflects mostly on the individual and the ski school that hired them. They may teach ATS, PMTS or any number of curricula specified by their SSD. In many cases instructors at lower levels are bodies on the hill that allow the program to fulfill its mission to provide ski lessons, primarily to groups of beginners and low intermediates that wouldn't recognize whether these instuctors have skill issues or not. The ski schools want them to provide a lesson that accomplishes the lesson objectives. Affiliation with PSIA may be a requirement for an increased pay level or continued employment.

PSIA is not responsible for the freeskiing standards of these skiers, but the clinic is clearly an opportunity for PSIA to influence their skiing. Maybe the fairer question is whether other professional ski instructing associations (Canada, Europe, Australian) would allow individuals of this caliber to obtain membership? In otherwords, are PSIA's standards too low? Is accreditation or affiliation handed out at the lowest level to unqualified individuals as compared to similar other organizations internationally.

You're absolutely right, vsp. The majority of the ski-instruction buying public is completely clueless about instructor certification schemes. Most of the students I've ever mentioned PSIA to just give me a blank stare in return.

I think the public equates the quality of ski instruction with that specific mountain or that specific instructor, not with any kind of certifying organization. There certainly are informed consumers who understand that higher level PSIA certs *should* translate into a better-qualified instructor (in a "perfect" world, of course), but I think those consumers are a tiny minority.

So maybe the logical extension of your observation is that lesson quality has *much* more to do with the unique dynamics of the ski school at a specific resort than with any sort of nebulous connection to PSIA?

Maybe my ski school is way out of the mainstream, but the only time anybody really talks about some "PSIA ideal" is when our instructors are either training or testing for certifications. Other than that, it just never comes up.

Excellent point Rick, I don't think the punters know enough to care. And they certainly don't know what PSIA is. It's only people like us (Phil's lunatic fringe) who get into arguments about this stuff.

I think, as far as practical stuff goes, that there is a lot more to being a ski instructor than being the best skier on the hill. Most beginners don't care because even if you aren't the best, because you are certainly better than they are. There is a big advantage in having a pleasant personality and being easy to ski with. You can be an awesome skier, but if you are crabby and mean (ie. make comments like some of the posters in this thread), you will not get a lot of repeat business which is the name of the game. Also, even if you are not always the best skier, it doesn't mean that you can't spot flaws in other's skiing. After all, could the average race coach beat his team in the gates?

That said, I think that some of the rest of us might tend to judge a ski school based on what we see on the hill. But then I don't know if the average barking bear is a big customer of lessons or not. I tend to think not. Last time I took a formal lesson was in Austria 20 years ago, and they guy was not just an instructor but a certified mountain guide as well.

"Loosely formed"???? Are you kidding? How is an organization that spands 4 disciplines across mulitple regions with thousands of members you can hardly call the organization "loosely formed". PSIA-E has almost 12,000 members alone and I am guessing that there are over 20,000 member nationwide with full time staffs at both the National Level and Regional Level, this is an organization run like a mid-size corporation, hardly "loosely formed".

How much direct control does it have over it's accredited ski schools? It has a large national structure but when it comes to individual schools it is a loose tie.

Control? We are talking about businesses, let's clarify here, not direct control. In major ski schools either major destination resorts or in key large ski schools most have key PSIA people in key management and/or training roles within the ski schools. I am sure there are countless examples in every PSIA region.

GarryZ is correct. It is a relatively loose structure, in reality.

Though PSIA creates and (to some degree) disseminates an outline of what should be covered by an instr in some general circumstances, the National or Divisional organizations have extremely little influence as to how any particular ski school implements its information.

That influence lies in the hands of the ski school management, their philosophies, and how actively involved the ski school is within their respective division. Some schools are very active, have divisional trainers and examiners on their staff (more DO NOT have ed staff members than do), and are more likely to have a stronger committment to the organizational guidelines. But some schools who are more independent (by history or by choice) have less committment, and offer their own take on various teaching methodologies, despite being a part of the larger organization. Many schools do not mandate membership in PSIA as a condition of employment. Of course, it is mandatory to take an exam.

But the nuts of the whole thing still comes down to the instr actually teaching the lesson! Each instr may still teach what they are most comfortable with, ie- a PSIA based progression in the Telluride Ski School, or a PMTS based progression taught at Keystone. The type or format of the information transferred is up to the pro. Some schools might be a bit dictatorial about what is taught on their hill. Some may not care, provided the guest is satisfied.

Then comes exam time. PSIA does set an exam standard, but each Division may execute their exams as they see fit. And again, there might be some variation among the examiners themselves, as to what the standard is, etc. But a common terminology and general understanding of the PSIA objectives is expected by each candidate, regardless of their orientation. After all, it does say PSIA on the pin... So for the time period of that process, PSIA is unified. But as each candidate (successful or otherwise) goes home to their respective areas, they will pick up right where they left off.

N.B.- By the way, for a Ski School to be recognized by PSIA, it must have a Level 3 as it's Director or Asst. Director. Lacking either of these, it may have a Level 3 acting as it's training coordinator. This individual may be contracted in from another ski school. There is no mention of the training coordinator being Divisional Trainer or Examiner, just a Level 3.

Geez Mr Junkie I find it interesting you read my post ,that is nearly completely supportive of the guidance offered by PSIA , and find two words to get upset about.
PSIA is run like an association not a corporation in it's handling of individual schools. Each individual member pays dues and gets certain privlidges . The parent offers guidance and training to be subscribed to by member schools. They pay extra for clinics , testing and their input other than reading materials(you purchase) and their website.
My definition of direct control is a sign saying PSIA ski school at MT Snowsalot. Not a small emblem somewhere at the school. A supervisor that is a direct paid representative of the parent company. They are paid by the ski school . A parent company would have an interest in the financial livlihood of the satellite school . They do not.
This is my definition of a loose organization. You are given basic strategies and are left to implement them on your own. These are not directives . They give us stepping stones and suggestions for particular drills and progressions.
It is up to us the get the right movements out of students . If my school doesn't make enough or it is found that some movements taught are incorrect my SSD is not fired or relieved of duty. More likely an examiner might note something he/she is concerned about and discuss this with the SSD or in the failling of cert candidates and then it is up to the individual ski school to get themselves in line with the direction of the National office.

I just don't understand why you got so upset, Maybe you could share it with us.

I disagree. Vail in particular has an abundance of PSIA people on it's staff and those people are responsible for influence within the Vail Ski School with regards to training and hiring etc. That's not a bad thing either, Vail has an excellent ski school. But let's not kid ourselves, PSIA has a prevalent influence in the better known ski schools period.

I am not knocking PSIA, I am member and I firmly believe it provides a quality methodology and infrastructure for teaching skiing up to level 7. I think there are much more pros than cons about PSIA etc. My concern is that there are too many instructors trying to teach in a linear fashion and focus WAY too much on this cookie cutter way of skiing and teaching. Yes it's up to the individual to responsible for one's development, but when you see a lot of the same thing something is wrong. That's where I feel something needs to change....

Upset? LOL, hardly...let's not confuse dissent with being "upset". You stated "loosely formed", I felt your statement minimized PSIA to a club or something to that effect. PSIA is a business, a non-profit, but it's still a business that is a professional organization dedicated to supporting a profession of people who work for corporations period. If it didn't have influence it would cease to exist.

You misunderstood me. I agree with this statement of yours completely

Ok...

Ski junkie-
Since I am one of the trainers and examiners on Vail's staff, I am fully aware of Vail's strengths and shortcomings (and believe me- there are many of both).

My point was there there are more ski areas WITHOUT an examiner or trainer on staff than there are with them. RM is maybe a bit different, as there are so many destination resorts, but so many of the smaller areas, ie- Monarch, Sunlight, Powderhorn, A-Basin, etc which do not have an Advanced Educator on staff.
I might imagine that the Eastern Division is similar- a heavy concentration of Adv Ed's at the larger, more destination type resorts, and few at the smaller Mom/Pop type areas.
When I was in the Western Division (70's and 80's), it was suprising the degree of equal representation there was between the larger and smaller areas. (When I made examiner, I was based at a mid sized area, quite off the beaten track.) But whether that holds true today, I have no idea.

So, I stand by my previously stated belief, that the ski school management sets the tone of teaching, training and overall PSIA involvement.

I hear you, but my point is two-fold, the majority of skier visits in the U.S. are done at mountains where PSIA has strong representation such as the major destination resorts in CO/UT/CA and weekend spots in VT, ME, NY & NH, this is also where the bulk of PSIA membership comes from, this is the bulk of where people work in ski instruction. I agree with you that the ski school sets the training standard, and often can be the problem in not providing adequate training. A perfect example was that a particular mountain in the East was designated as the PSIA-E training center for a couple of years, yet very little training was offered to the ski school staff because keeping the lesson mill moving at any cost was more important than improving the product. Ironically this ski school had probably at least 6 or 7 examiners on staff. My concern is the cultural aspect of ski teaching that some of the disciples of PSIA are teachers who fall into the category of the original post of this thread because many are more passionate about the professional designation than being just passionate skiers. Enough said!

Being a skier is an avocation... Being a ski instr is just a job.

I feel really sorry for those who think of their lives being so closely associated with their jobs... like the Doctor who introduces himself in relaxed social settings as DR. ........ Nobody really cares!

I remember our phone conversation about that. Very true.

Someone further up asked if other countries' systems would allow people to be certified who exhibited poor skiing. Well, the short answer is: other countries' systems have a requirement to re-certify every few years.
This does not mean going through the entire exam again, but is a special event to re-visit the instructor's skiing and teaching, to ensure that they still are skiing and teaching at a level worthy of their certification. The understanding is that if they are not, they will be downgraded. So they ensure that they are, in a nutshell. With a specific penalty if they have not maintained their skills, this is not really anything like the PSIA requirement to turn up to a couple of clinics every few years.

And for those who defend the instruction to "lean" against the fronts of the boots, you are defending the indefensible. Leaning takes one out of balance. Balance is the fundamental skill basic of skiing. No matter what your original intent was in telling the guest to "lean", their interpretation is what ultimately matters. And really, interpretation aside, I defy anyone to lean against the fronts of their boots and still be in balance.