Service fails the exam test

Despite feeling confident about passing last month’s sergeants’ exam, one officer was so concerned about the annual single exam process, he has written the following article.

There has been much debate about the relevance of the OSPRE part one sergeants’ exam over recent months. I have had doubts for many years as to the relevance of the part one exam to the role of a police sergeant in today’s police service. Having just sat the exam for the first time, after completing more than 15 years service, I have been inspired into making my own comment.

I am a Centrex qualified police trainer, I hold a Masters degree, a couple of Batchelor’s degrees and many training qualifications – including test design writing exams – so it’s fair to say I am no stranger to sitting exams.

Looking at the huge syllabus it became apparent that, to be fully prepared for a three-hour exam, I couldn’t learn it all. Most institutions of higher education or professional organisations that run examinations focus the subject matter in relation to the length of the exam. For example, a three-hour exam on such a huge syllabus would normally examine a shallow but wide breadth of topic areas. However, Centrex do not do this. They examine a selection of the topic areas in finite detail, the minutiae rather than the general fact.

This depth of testing is usually found in ‘open book’ exams, which are preferred by most professions as they realise that the application of knowledge is more desirable than the mere recall of facts. They appreciate that in the real world their staff have access to the manuals or data in their day jobs, so they align the exam accordingly, thereby testing that the knowledge and understanding of the individual is commensurate with the post.

I undertook a five-month course of study that included listening to audio CDs, conducting computer-based learning, the traditional studying of manuals and even a three-day crammer course. I studied previous exam questions, answered test papers and learned whole acts. I tried to get inside the heads of the exam writers, recognising the type of questions and points of law that were usually tested.

I did not play the game of predicting what would be on the paper, but I did make sensible judgments about how best to spend my study time. This achieved a sense of preparedness for the exam that I never thought I would have felt at the start of my studies.

When I sat down to complete the exam, I felt that three years of teaching law to probationers, and five months of relevant, focused study had prepared me better than many of my colleagues sitting around me. Yet when I walked out of the exam I honestly had no idea whether I would pass or fail. I did know, however, with absolute certainty, that a large percentage of my result would be down to luck.

I don’t wish to demean anyone who has passed this exam – I know many people who have worked very hard to pass it. But here is the problem. We all know a lot of very good police officers, many of them in acting sergeant roles, who have failed it. Many of them have failed it time and time again. Most of these officers are competently performing sergeant’s duties, month after month, year after year, yet they keep failing the exam. Is that their fault, or is it the selection process that is failing them? This poses the question; if they cannot pass the sergeants’ exam, are they fit for role?

Chief officers throughout the service employ acting sergeants daily, and trust them to perform their duties. Whose needs are being addressed here? This seems to be more an organisational need brought about by an ineffective selection and qualifying process.

The subject matter examined within the part one sergeant’s exam contains many elements that have a tenuous link to the vocational needs of the officer. The exam covers elements of law and procedure that are simply not used by police sergeants in their jobs. In today’s litigious society we may be leaving chief officers and acting sergeants