Becoming an Instructor without BHS Exams

[maggiestar]

Hi everyone,

Does anyone know of a route to becoming an instructor without going through the BHS route? I have my BHS I but my interest doesn't lie in stable management so I don't want to continue on that route.

Thanks for any advice

 

[JustKickOn]

UKCC, offered through all of the affiliated bodies.

 

[kinnygirl1]

How about "Think like a pony"? They have a website with some details.

 

[Horsey Sophie]

Just a question, why do you want to teach if you're not interested in stable management? For me, having an instructor with overall horse experience (not just riding) is paramount, as I'm sure it is to others.

The immediate two routes are ABRS or UKCC.

You could look at more 'specialist' routes like EE or RWYM to become an instructor or if you are competitive, people seem to teach off the back off good competitive results.

 

[teapot]

I'd have thought aspects of the Stage 3 'stable management' side about horse anatomy, physiology and horse health would be paramount to be an all round good instructor.

UKCC is one other route but there's a lot of theory to it in parts.

 

[JustKickOn]

Just to add, if you already have stage 1, if you do your stage 2 then PTT you can teach with that. Once you've completed and submitted the PTT portfolio, you can get your UKCC level 2, so 2 qualifications from one lot of work.

 

[rara007]

Many of the top riders teach, with 0 qualifications just reputation

 

[Mike007]

Many of the top riders teach, with 0 qualifications just reputation

And is that a good thing?

 

[Overread]

And is that a good thing?

Neither good nor bad.

Qualifications act as good base-line for advertising; they give any potential students an idea of your background, target skill level and general expected knowledge. If you are not high-profile in a local sense then qualifications can help gain new students; whilst if you're more active and have networked more extensively you might be able to get away without any and rely more so on word of mouth.
This is also one of those things where the qualifications might diminish in importance over the years since the longer one operates and does well the more community awareness there is.


However I would also say that you nave to consider the qualifications carefully. Qualifications in the field of your focus are good; they give you insight into how to teach that subject which can often reveal minor, small and key details that otherwise might get overlooked. It can also highlight typical student behaviour patterns within the field of interest which you can watch out for.

However I would say that, depending how far you want to go with teaching, its good to not just get qualifications/training in the field of interest; but also within the world of teaching itself. Teaching is a skill unto itself, thus whilst one might have skill within a field of interest; they also need skill within the realms of teaching in order to be an effective teacher.
Additional teacher training can also give you new insights, more tools to work with and improve your ability to communicate to students.

 

[legend22]

Neither good nor bad.

Qualifications act as good base-line for advertising; they give any potential students an idea of your background, target skill level and general expected knowledge. If you are not high-profile in a local sense then qualifications can help gain new students; whilst if you're more active and have networked more extensively you might be able to get away without any and rely more so on word of mouth.
This is also one of those things where the qualifications might diminish in importance over the years since the longer one operates and does well the more community awareness there is.


However I would also say that you nave to consider the qualifications carefully. Qualifications in the field of your focus are good; they give you insight into how to teach that subject which can often reveal minor, small and key details that otherwise might get overlooked. It can also highlight typical student behaviour patterns within the field of interest which you can watch out for.

However I would say that, depending how far you want to go with teaching, its good to not just get qualifications/training in the field of interest; but also within the world of teaching itself. Teaching is a skill unto itself, thus whilst one might have skill within a field of interest; they also need skill within the realms of teaching in order to be an effective teacher.
Additional teacher training can also give you new insights, more tools to work with and improve your ability to communicate to students.

This!

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

There is also your long term career to consider, the best instructors I know have qualifications at the top level and teach at that level,. Yes there are really good teachers locally, with minimal quaifications, who have a niche clientel locally, but they are not likely to reach that top level.
If I want a problem solved, I contact a BHSII over a BHSAI, they are better and have more experience, I don't have to discuss the approach with them, they just get on and sort the problem straight away. I don't have to decide if they are going to cope, I know they have that knowledge needed to pass that particular exam
I think that stable management, anatomy, etc is something one is expected to know, it is relevant, and to be honest you have to "read around" your subject in any field. Just do it if you want to be a mainstream instructor.

 

[rara007]

Id chose a lesson with Carl or Boyd Excel over my local AI or LHHI or UKCC L2 so not an issue with me! (I say as a UKCC L2 Carriage driving!)
I did my years in pony club and follow modern advances so don't expect stable management in my lessons and as a final year vet student hoping to do horses with a BSc in BioVeterinary looking at locomotion my anatomy has a quite shocking way to go but is still sufficient for day to day issues.
One of my riding intructors is a list 2 judge but no teaching qual, another a UKCC L3, another simply the brother to an international rider. My driving coach is now a UKCC L3, but previously I used him unqualified with just his international reputation. I have plenty of friends who are AIs and I know that's only the starting block but I wouldn't use them for most things...I think it depends on your target market, aims for your teaching and riding yourself, as to how important qualifications are

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

Id chose a lesson with Carl or Boyd Excel over my local AI or LHHI or UKCC L2 so not an issue with me! (I say as a UKCC L2!)

There is one Carl and one Boyd, but a one off lesson is not going to turn a novice in to an expert. Its OK to spend a week's wages on a couple of lessons, but most of us have to use a local person, its called grassroots, and is essential in any sport.

 

[rara007]

I think qualifications are more important if targeting the lower level and thats a good thing - hence I've done mine as I only teach people up to local level competing but mainly beginners. Teachers encompass this which is mainly taster lessons, right up to going abroad or flying someone in for a lesson, and when you know the target you can chose the route that's most appropriate.

 

[Mooseontheloose]

Another issue you really need to think about is insurance. Many people, including some well known 'names' instruct but do not have liability insurance. In this age people will have their solicitor on speed dial and will be hitting the button as they hit the deck. It's really not a good idea to teach without full insurance. Being a BHS registered instructor means you can get cover. Other disciplines offer it too.
Even if the instructor has no responsbility for an accident, the hassle of dealing with a court case is monumentally exhausting and expensive.
I did my qualifications quite late in life, having instructed for many years and having a large client base. I was amazed at how much I learned about teaching technique, different ways of putting ideas, dealing with people who may have learning difficulties and find it hard to understand instructions etc.
Also, I now teach a lot of horsecare through a college training provider. I find it fascinating and am learning a lot myself as I prepare lessons and it helps to keep up with modern research.
It also amazes me when dealing with people competing to a very high level, even internationally, at how little they know about the structure of their horse and how much the care of it can affect the way a horse goes, manages stress, copes with difficult conditions etc.

 

[blitznbobs]

I'd try and get a job on a top trainers yard ... Then u can advertise as trained by xxx xxx and go that way.

If you are thinking of teaching beginners you'll need the exams tho

 

[Holly Hocks]

I'm not bothered about whether someone has qualifications or not. My instructor has demonstrated by her competition results and experience that she is probably far better than most qualified instructors, but it also depends on what you are looking to learn. I wanted a classical instructor which is why I use the one I do - if I wanted to do showjumping I would possibly use someone different. However it's important to have public liability insurance as an instructor. I've see people purporting to be "instructors" when in fact they have done nothing more than a bit of unaffiliated dressage and been round the local hunter trials - attempting to teach other novice riders with stuff they have learned from the internet. Dangerous.

 

[sport horse]

Also 'quite important' to have a first aid qualification!

 

[Mooseontheloose]

And child protection and CRb (or whatever it is now) check.
It's a very different thing being able to do it oneself and being able to teach it.
One problem with very good riders is that they are sometimes unable to understand that learners are nervous, or not able to translate the instructions, or lacking basic knowledge themselves. There is sometimes an assumption that people know stuff when in fact they don't.
I also think that people do over estimate the ability of AIs, they are trained to a certain level, they do not neccessarily have competition experience and in that case you are better to go to a discipline specific trainer, if that's what you need. But many AIs are excellent, and all of them have invested time and money in their training and are (if on the register) covered for insurance.
The UKCC quals also imply that the person has taken the bother to get some training in coaching techniques.
I didn't go the BHS route, but I find it sad that people who have usually worked incredibly hard through the riding school system are rubbished, often by riders who have not made any effort to get formal qualifications. And the PTT is the first step, if you have the time and finance you can go further and increase all your qualifications and experience.
. And as I said in my earlier post, you will find it very difficult to get insurance cover without, and anyone who teaches without insurance is really chancing their future.
One claim could wipe someone out financially.
It's also 'horses for courses' - I teach coaching techniques, and I've seen young trainees develop a great rapport with their riders and have them engaged and happy - remember most people just want to learn to be better, not to be William Fox Pitt; and I've seen some truly terrible lessons from four star riders, who have given instructions and expected reactions from riders who are just unable to understand because they are not expressed properly and clearly.
You obviously feel you have something to offer the horse world, you owe it to yourself to give yourself the best start in your chosen career, and teaching un-insured due to lack of qualifications is not the best way to go about it.

 

[EventingMum]

At grassroots level I think you need a good background knowledge in stable management as some of the people you teach will need guidance on feeding, tack fitting etc as well as riding tuition, the BHS qualifications will ensure you have this knowledge. Generic UKCC exams can be done along side BHS teaching qualifications. Riders specialising in one discipline will probably want to be taught by someone specialising in their discipline (eventers excepted as they will often use seperate trainers for each element). The trainers they use tend to be those who have competed sucessfully to a level themselves so market themselves on their competitive experience. Even so many are now undertaking UKCC qualification which focus on how to coach and the pyschology behind it as even if you've ridden to a high level it doesn't mean you have the ability to coach.

Qualifications also make it much easier to get insurance which is essential for anyone teaching. OP I think you have to look at your potential clients and your own equestrian background ie competitive experience and make a decision based on that as to what qualification route is best suited to you.

 

[sarahann1]

I'm just stating the UKCC level 1, for many of the reasons already listed. I'm not a competitive rider, I can teach beginners and novices no bother, but without any qualifications or results why would anyone want me as an instructor?

I never had the opportunity to do my BHS stages when I was younger and at the moment the UKCC is the most accessible option for me to get a qualification under my belt. I fully intend on doing more, but my nearest BHS training centre is a bit of a drive away.

I had a conversation with my instructor today about qualifications, she was saying at pony club they are much stricter about instructors having qualifications for insurance reasons. To the extent she's seen local stalwart instructors who are very experienced, teaching for 30+years, have results by the bucket load, doing their UKCC qualifications, starting at level 1.

 

[littleshetland]

My trainer has no qualifications other than training herself with a very famous Olympian, produces horses to an incredibly high standard, competes very successfully and is a throughly lovely, knowledgable person. As I said, no qualifications, other than a very good reputation.