The Difference Between The Standards Check & The ADI Part 3 Test - Become A Driving Instructor In London
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-11886,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-theme-ver-13.1.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.4.5,vc_responsive

The Difference Between The Standards Check & The ADI Part 3 Test

The Difference Between The Standards Check & The ADI Part 3 Test

Having recently passed my standards check, I now feel better positioned to share my thoughts on the differences between the ADI part 3 test and the standards check  as well as the expected change to the part 3 test to align it with the standards check.

The first point that I would like to make is that the 2 standards required from the 2 tests are hugely different. Therefore the skill sets required for each assessment are also naturally also very different.

In the part 3 test, you have to be able to demonstrate the ability to identify driving faults, analyse why they happened and provide a solution to how to stop the fault from being repeated.

In the standards check however you have to display the ability to formulate a lesson plan suited to a pupils needs, choose a suitable route and most importantly manage the risk a real pupil presents on the road.

The questions that need to be answered are twofold.

  1. can either test adequately cover both skill sets
  2. are the skills required for the part 3 test redundant in light of the skills required for the standards check?

The answer to the 1st question has to be an unequivocal no.

The adi part 3 clearly cannot test risk management because there is clearly not any real risk as the ‘pupil’ is in reality a highly skilled driver.

Likewise the check test cannot adequately test the ability to identify and remedy driving faults because the would be instructor has the ability to practice one lesson with one pupil on one route over and over again until the ‘pupil’ has perfected it allowing for a role play to take place on the test where the examiner cannot possibly be sure as to whether any faults have been truly identified or pre planned.

The answer to the 2nd question also must be an unequivocal no. If a driving instructor is not able to identify and remedy faults across the whole syllabus, how can they prepare students to pass a test which encompasses the whole syllabus?

Therefore having established that each assessment requires different skills, both skill sets are of critical importance and that neither assessment can adequately check both sets of skills needed to be a driving instructor, what is the solution?

Perhaps the solution would be to keep things as they are. This allows for a new ADI to have to demonstrate all the skills required over 2 assessments.

Another solution would be to fuse the 2 tests together whereby phase one of the adi part 3 stays the same and phase 2 is a real pupil, but a pupil that the instructor has never met before and the subject matter is determined like on a PST sheet. How would such “real pupils” be found? Simple – the dsa call up recently failed pupils offering a free driving lesson – a true win-win situation.

The reality is that the part 3 exam is likely to change soon to align with the standards check assessment and so we may soon find scores of driving instructors on the register unable to identify driving faults across the whole syllabus.

It is not a world i would want to be in, but the flexibility of permanently movable goal posts aids us to make changes whenever it is deemed necessary.


This post was created by one of our driving instructors Mustafa.

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.