I've been lurking and following this one. Allow me to ask some "devil's advocate" questions; I see a lot of enthusiasm and good suggestions which I don't want to criticise, but not much clarity and consistency of outcome. I don't know after seven pages what this might achieve. Do you?
How are you going to avoid re-inventing the wheel, avoid opinions being presented as facts, achieve consistency across component courses, agree and periodically revise a comprehensive syllabus, etc.? If you want to award some sort of progress recognition, how are you going to manage the practical and theoretical assessments, who will set the tasks/questions, who will assess/mark, who will moderate to ensure fair treatment and consistency?
The BBKA are putting a lot of effort into their Course in a Case (CiC) initiative. This involves creating new training materials, including video footage, recruiting and training more trainers, and getting the materials out to associations. The various levels can be presented by associations to their members, providing a modular and structured programme of training following a tried and tested syllabus. Assessments are optional, but rely again on existing practical assessors, standards, and processes, and examinations with existing marking, moderation, and assurance of consistent standards.
There has been some misunderstanding of what CiC will deliver, mainly it would seem because the most basic level overlaps with what associations already have developed over the years for some form of novice/beginner course. The subsequent levels of CiC go through the Basic syllabus and then progress through the module/husbandry syllabi in stages; very few associations have any training materials that cover these levels, in my experience.
Do you want to achieve much of this, some of this, or something entirely different?
In the nicest possible way, has this idea been kicked off because the BBKA doesn't recommend top bar hives? Seems an awful lot of re-inventing of the wheel just to promote a different mentality and hive type! Why not just write something that complements the existing material, but fills in the blanks as you see them?
The BBKA associations are often accused of being too prescriptive. I rail against some of it myself, too - I don't believe the National hive is that well suited to much of southern England - but I accept that you have to give beginners something to start with. If you sat down every person who wanted to take on a swarm or nuc and explained all the possible scenarios, the intricacies, all the "well, it depends..." answers to the simple "what do I do next" questions, then they'd never start. Too many variables, too difficult to see what went wrong or to compare like-for-like and actually learn something from the experiences.
By giving beginners a framework within which to work - such as using one simple hive type, a fairly rigid month-by-month breakdown of expected work in the apiary, one method for swarm control, one method for disease monitoring/treatment, one method for overwintering, etc. we're providing them with a framework that should help them find their feet. Yes, it's not perfect, but the alternative is chaos and demoralisation as it all seems too complex, too prone to failure.
How are you going to maintain standards, and breadth of perspective? Who's going to cover all the dull-but-important topics, variations on methods, etc. to a consistent level? Who assesses the 'experts' and mentors to ensure that they can both talk the talk and walk the walk? The internet is a wonderful place for finding distant experts who never have to prove their competence
There have been a whole bunch of beginners books published in the past five years, ranging from the fluffy-muppet end to the beekeeper's bible; there's something there for every taste and aspiration. Armed with a few of these titles, watching a few YouTube videos, attending some meetings and demonstrations, what else is a beginner going to get out of all this work that you are proposing? Surely it will never replace hive-side tuition, and that's what so many are crying out for?
Lots of questions, intended as food for thought. I don't expect a perfect solution, but think more crystallisation of scope is required...
