As someone who has been training and certifying lifeguards for over a decade through American Lifeguard Events, it’s a perspective I’ve come to hold privately but am now ready to publicly discuss – that current certification standards could actually underprepare guards for their critical duties.
While initial courses introduce ropes and instill minimum competencies, I believe more intensive training is warranted given the tremendous responsibility of protecting human lives professionally. Allow me to explain my potentially controversial stance.
Reality Is Unpredictable
Lifeguard certification can only simulate a limited scope of emergency scenarios. But as any seasoned guard knows, swimming pools and beaches hold constant unpredictability. Split-second thinking and preparedness for any situation separates those who save lives from those who don’t. Two days may not ready recruits for true unpredictability.
Is Two Days Enough?
Most entry-level certifications require just 16-24 hours of total class time spread over two days. While meeting legal certifying body requirements, I question if this brief period truly cultivates the high-stress decision making, sharpest surveillance abilities and thorough assessments needed in emergencies.
Reconsidering Continuing Education
Most certifications renew every 1-3 years through simple online modules reviewing concepts rather than intensive in-person skill rehearsal. However, our capabilities naturally degrade without active practice. Shouldn’t professionals entrusted with public safety undergo more rigorous and hands-on recertification maintaining peak performance? Simulated emergencies and comprehensive practical re-assessments could justify ongoing confidence in guards.
Specializations Demand Dedicated Preparation
While two days may ready one for general guarding of recreational pools, vocational specializations like ocean rescue require vastly different skillsets given tide pressures, currents and distance patrols. Certain environments surely warrant dedicated certifications reflecting their life-threatening complexities rather than abbreviated add-ons. Intensive specialization training could prevent guards from feeling ill-equipped when facing special circumstances.
Reconsidering Age Requirements
Some certifying bodies certify minors as young as 15 who lack full maturity and physical development of adult professionals entrusted with lifeguarding year round. Requiring older age, higher fitness benchmarks and mandating guardianship under seasoned colleagues during initial years could foster a stronger culture of safety stewardship and higher industry standards overall.
Ongoing Practice is Key
Instructors emphasize continuous practice is vital yet certification suggests competency after minimal exposure. Research shows skills like CPR degrade within months without repetition. How can two days instill lifetime preparedness without ongoing supplemental training?
Focus on Prevention Lacking
While covering basic response protocols, initial courses spend less time on surveilling techniques, enforcement strategies and installing a true culture of prevention at guarded areas. A stronger focus here could reduce emergencies needing response.
Testing Standards Need Revision
While assessing speed and form, certification skills tests may not expose those lacking critical thinking, teamwork or displays of true lifesaving mental fortitude under pressure. Raising passing standards could better filter who is entrusted with guarding public safety.
Financial Barriers
Intensive training requires time and funds which may deter needed professionals. However, shouldn’t human safety outweigh all other concerns? Potential subsidies or tax incentives could promote advanced training accessibility.
Psychological Evaluation
Current testing may not uncover impaired judgement, hero complexes or inability to perform under true psychological stress which endanger others. Integrating psychological screening could filter those unfit and help avoid tragedies.
Physical Fitness Standards
Reconsidering benchmarks may be needed to safely perform physically demanding rescues all season/conditions. While inclusive, people’s lives depend on guards’ robust capabilities. Stricter fitness baselines could promote a higher safety culture.
Ongoing Mentorship
New guards would benefit from assigned mentors providing feedback and training annually beyond recertification. This fosters continual skill-sharpening within real work environments and a legacy of experience passing to each new generation of professionals.
Alternative Models
Other industries requiring split-second lifesaving like aviation integrate simulation, extensive competency demonstration and recurrent training that could inform reconsidering our approaches. Cross-training exercises Guards for working with other emergency roles.
In Closing
I want to reiterate that my aim in discussing these ideas is to strengthen safety standards through productive discourse, not attack the rigor of existing programs. As with any profession entrusted with public welfare, guarding inherently demands ceaseless self-examination of how training can match the serious responsibilities involved.
While current certification undeniably instills vital basics, it’s my hope that contemplating alternative perspectives may inspire gradual improvements. For an industry safeguarding lives, maintaining a growth mindset open to respectful critiques seems only prudent.
Progress often happens incrementally through challenging preconceived assumptions and exploring new approaches integrated judiciously over time. I believe the proposals suggested here warrant ongoing respectful discussion within our community forums and among certifying bodies. Read more information click here.