Ski School Best Practices

[karlo]

This thread is inspired by @TonyPlush's "Mountains with the best ski schools?", in General. That thread has to do with great deals for good lessons. I'd be interested in hearing, from both instructors and students, their experiences with regard to Best Practices at Ski Schools. It can be anything. For example, best instructor training program, best sorting out of students by abilities, best facilities, best student/instructor ratio limits, processing huge numbers on holidays; anything operational. This is not about how good any individual instructor or Director is as an instructor. But, certainly, feel free to give credit to those you feel deserve it for running a great operation.

Also, please note that trashing and criticizing any particular Ski School is not the objective here, nor helpful. Every Ski School has different limits in resources and maybe even different objectives. The idea here is to note Best Practices, in order to see what opportunities for improvement there may be for all schools.

 

[Josh Matta]

I would say in the east Stowe most likely has the most education staff, L3 and L2 that are actually working lesson. If you come for an advance level mid week adult group lesson you are basically promised someone qualified to train staff as you group lesson coach.

With that said our downside is our prices.

 

[Mike King]

Here at Aspen/Snowmass, we have a great ski school with more members of national demo teams than at any other resort in the world. We also have a disproportionate number of the education staff in PSIA-RM division. Our training program is great with a lot of varied training. Pay, as far as I can tell, is the best in North America. Our company is privately held and doesn't seem to have the same pressures as other resorts.

Still, there are a number of staff who do not invest in their own skiing and teaching. Some staff use dead ends in their teaching and exhibit pretty lousy examples of skiing. Snowmass tries to encourage all staff to work on their own skiing and teaching in a couple of ways. First, all staff are required to take a minimum number of hours of training. Second, Snowmass has a "Global Passport" system that affects the priority of work assignments based on demonstrating proficiency of skiing and MA (at a Level 2, 3, or trainer standard). Finally, those that exhibit the highest levels of skiing, MA, and teaching may attain a higher rate of pay.

Mike

 

[crgildart]

Do they still hold an annual PSIA Academy that many ski school directors attend? If so, where is it held most often??

 

[Mike King]

Do they still hold an annual PSIA Academy that many ski school directors attend? If so, where is it held most often??

There is the National Academy that is a opportunity for PSIA members to ski with and take instruction from members of the PSIA demo team -- present and past members. This year (and reportedly next) it will be held at Big Sky. It has most often been held at Snowbird. Every 4th year, the tryouts for the demo team are held after the conclusion of the Academy -- that'll happen in 2 years (next year is Interski and that will be held in Bulgaria).

In the fall, PSIA-RM holds a Ski Area Management event.

Mike

 

[karlo]

Ski Area Management event.

ooo, that would be a great event to learn more about best practices.

My understanding is that Extremely Canadian is actually owned by Whistler Blackcomb, but still operated by its founders. Just as there are Kid's ski schools in a ski schools, I think it's great that WB supports a skiing education program that focuses on a type of skiing, Steep Skiing in xCan's case. One could say that is a marketing thing. But, there really is a difference. Like guidance on thinking through the line and skiing needed to get through a steep and gnarly section. Whereas, I've experienced some "Expert" programs elsewhere where one is basically taking a ski lesson on double black trails. Keep in mind that steep and gnarly are relative terms, and training an intermediate to see what is before them, and how to decide on lines on a difficult blue is not dissimilar to what exCan does.

So, I think that ski schools that integrate skiing with "skiing the mountain" bring value. However, I understand that one needs the scale and terrain of a WB. But, even still, I think ski schools that, regardless of size and terrain, incorporate mountain awareness, by-design or through less formal instructor training, into ski instruction would be an example of Best Practice.

 

[T-Square]

For PSIA-E there is the Snowsports Management Seminar normally held in mid-November.

This event promises to be informative and exciting as well as educational. To receive PSIA national accreditation, the director or technical director/supervisor must attend (annually) the Snowsports School Management Seminar, the Southern Snowsports School Management Seminar, or the National Academy. Although only the director or a staff trainer is required to attend, you will want to bring several of your trainers in order to take full advantage of the topics being offered​

There is also the two Eastern Trainer Academies held at the same time.

Level 1:
Upon completion of all sessions, staff trainers in this course should have a clear understanding of the PSIA Alpine National Standards. Sessions include indoor presentations as well as on snow application. All participants will receive an Eastern Trainers Academy pin which will identify the staff trainers who have completed this training. Snowsports School Director’s Signature required on all applications.

Level 2:
Alpine Level II or III Certified Members who have attended the Eastern Trainer Academy 101 may advance to the 201 course. Upon completion of all sessions, staff trainers in this course should have a clear understanding of the PSIA Alpine National Standards and how to effectively present this information to your staff. Session include indoor presentations as well as on snow application. Snowsports School Director’s Signature required on all applications.​

 

[LiquidFeet]

....
Level 2:
Alpine Level II or III Certified Members who have attended the Eastern Trainer Academy 101 may advance to the 201 course. Upon completion of all sessions, staff trainers in this course should have a clear understanding of the PSIA Alpine National Standards and how to effectively present this information to your staff. Session include indoor presentations as well as on snow application. Snowsports School Director’s Signature required on all applications.​

I had no idea that Level IIs could attend these things. Has that always been the case?

 

[T-Square]

@LiquidFeet, it’s been that way for the past 6 years that I know of. Several members of our smal ski school have attended. Great feedback from all of them.

 

[karlo]

Another Best Practice came to mind today as I watched a large class. 13 kids. But, two instructors. At other places, I've seen 12 kids with one instructor. Strict limits on student teacher ratio seems to be a good metric.

Another came to mind as my daughter and I recollected our experience at a resort many years ago, when she was about 10. At that resort, they placed ankle bracelets on the kids. A central station would know if any child got more than a certain distance from the instructor. That was a big resort; a child getting lost would be very serious. And, even for the largest, few would finance a tracking system. However, having a firm guideline or goal, that is shared with instructor staff, as to maximum distance would be good to have. That's a measurable ski school metric, whether or not instructors are given a guideline.

 

[karlo]

Here's another one. Mandatory ski-off if an instructor at the school has not, after having instructed the student, has not specified the student's level. No student or parent provided assessment allowed.

Plus, a process for auditing instructors' determinations of levels.

 

[LiquidFeet]

My thoughts on student levels....

As a teacher in my non-snow life, I get different levels in every classroom and always have. Say I have a class of 25 students. 2-4 will be very capable, 2-4 will be clueless and very slow to catch on if at all, and the rest will be somewhere in between. I've never had a class that didn't break down this way, and I'm speaking both as a high school teacher and later a college teacher. I teach art, so I see them doing their work, just as when I teach skiing. Both are performance-in-the-classroom (not sit and absorb, then do the actual work as homework) types of educational enterprises. Both require the teacher teach them while they are doing their stuff.

So, learning to teach to each of the three "levels" at the same time, then giving personal feedback to individuals, is the nature of the beast. Figuring out how to teach to the group and to the individual is a challenging task. Many teachers choose to teach to the group and let it go at that. Others try to reach every student with individual feedback.

Back in the "final form" days of ski instruction, before my time, I think students were put into groups determined by level - with a bit more determination to eliminate the breakdown I just described. I wonder if it worked. If it did, then teaching to the group would have been enough. Is there anybody reading this thread who was teaching back then, and who wants to comment?

 

[Rod9301]

Best practice with be to pay instructors more than 15 percent of what a private costs.

 

[karlo]

learning to teach to each of the three "levels" at the same time

That is certainly do-able if there were no terrain preferences. But, when some want to, and can benefit from, ski blue terrain, as an example, and students are in the group that cannot handle it (or cannot learn while on it), I feel that things break down.

 

[LiquidFeet]

The instructor chooses the terrain when teaching a group lesson.

The instructor chooses terrain appropriate for the lowest level skier in the group because safety is a major factor in ski instruction. Over-terrained people don't learn and are in danger of getting hurt. The people skiing at a higher level should have paid for a private lesson if they wanted control over the terrain. Being stuck in a group, and being taught as a member of a group by an instructor who must consider safety of the lowest student in the group, is a product of paying the lower group lesson rate.

The instructor can give valuable instruction to the higher level students while on easy terrain. Bag o' tricks needs to be deep.

 

[JESinstr]

My thoughts on student levels....

As a teacher in my non-snow life, I get different levels in every classroom and always have. Say I have a class of 25 students. 2-4 will be very capable, 2-4 will be clueless and very slow to catch on if at all, and the rest will be somewhere in between. I've never had a class that didn't break down this way, and I'm speaking both as a high school teacher and later a college teacher. I teach art, so I see them doing their work, just as when I teach skiing. Both are performance-in-the-classroom (not sit and absorb, then do the actual work as homework) types of educational enterprises. Both require the teacher teach them while they are doing their stuff.

So, learning to teach to each of the three "levels" at the same time, then giving personal feedback to individuals, is the nature of the beast. Figuring out how to teach to the group and to the individual is a challenging task. Many teachers choose to teach to the group and let it go at that. Others try to reach every student with individual feedback.

Back in the "final form" days of ski instruction, before my time, I think students were put into groups determined by level - with a bit more determination to eliminate the breakdown I just described. I wonder if it worked. If it did, then teaching to the group would have been enough. Is there anybody reading this thread who was teaching back then, and who wants to comment?

The instructor chooses the terrain when teaching a group lesson.

The instructor chooses terrain appropriate for the lowest level skier in the group because safety is a major factor in ski instruction. Over-terrained people don't learn and are in danger of getting hurt. The people skiing at a higher level should have paid for a private lesson if they wanted control over the terrain. Being stuck in a group, and being taught as a member of a group by an instructor who must consider safety of the lowest student in the group, is a product of paying the lower group lesson rate.

The instructor can give valuable instruction to the higher level students while on easy terrain. Bag o' tricks needs to be deep.

While I don't disagree with your logic on this subject LF, As I recall, In schools we have honors programs for the bright and remedial programs for the not so bright. In skiing, people are paying for a service and will continue buying this service so long as value is received.

So I have to pose the rhetorical question of what does it say about the lineup supervisor , the SS school and Hill management in terms of promoting and building the sport of skiing? I would assume the only legitimate reason that groups are ability mixed are for financial reasons or lack of staff. Obviously we all get stuck with mixed groups from time to time especially during holiday weeks, but this should be the exception not the rule.

 

[karlo]

The instructor chooses terrain appropriate for the lowest level skier in the group because safety is a major factor in ski instruction

Absolutely. Totally agree. I was referring to what the Ski School can do to alter the value equation for all. I also think that, on smaller hills, where instructors can easily move students between groups on-the-fly, a ski-off would add little.

 

[LiquidFeet]

People are different. Even if they are all at the "same level," they will respond to different cues from the instructor ... differently. Where I've been working, the line-up boss has been pretty good getting people grouped by level. Except of course in the beginner never-ever adult groups, where you just don't know how things will go until you're in the middle of the lesson. Here in New England, our never-ever lessons last from 1/5 to 3 hours. Short lessons like this strongly impact how much wiggle room the instructor has to figure out what might work for each individual in that group.

The issue is how does an instructor choose to teach a group lesson. One can take the differences into account and try to engage with every student personally, or one can teach to the "middle" or the "bottom," or one can throw all kinds of things at them and then say at the end of the lesson "If even one of the things I presented in this lesson today is useful to each one of you, then the lesson is a success." This last one, the shotgun approach to teaching, means you spatter them with as much as you can fit into the hour, never knowing whether you did something useful for any of them.

Back before I became a ski instructor I took numerous lessons and they were always group lessons because I was on a budget. I heard the instructors recite this trite closing more than once. I got supremely frustrated and became an instructor to get better training. I found out training sessions are often taught this way, too.

 

[karlo]

"If even one of the things I presented in this lesson today is useful to each one of you, then the lesson is a success."

LOL

 

[markojp]

Another Best Practice came to mind today as I watched a large class. 13 kids. But, two instructors. At other places, I've seen 12 kids with one instructor. Strict limits on student teacher ratio seems to be a good metric.

Another came to mind as my daughter and I recollected our experience at a resort many years ago, when she was about 10. At that resort, they placed ankle bracelets on the kids. A central station would know if any child got more than a certain distance from the instructor. That was a big resort; a child getting lost would be very serious. And, even for the largest, few would finance a tracking system. However, having a firm guideline or goal, that is shared with instructor staff, as to maximum distance would be good to have. That's a measurable ski school metric, whether or not instructors are given a guideline.

That's the FLAIK tracking system you're talking about. Great for big areas like W/BC etc... where losing a student (independent study) can be a search and rescue effort. Maximum distance would be tough to set as it depends on terrain, weather, the group's ability, age, proximity/simplicity of the route to the destination lift, etc...