Cookie Settings
This site uses third-party website tracking and analytical technologies to help us improve the user experience.
Privacy Policy
Introduction
Mountain Training England is committed to the belief that more people should have the opportunity to enjoy walking and climbing in the UK and beyond. We aim to ensure our qualifications are accessible to all individuals capable of independently demonstrating their leadership competence.
This guidance is for course providers delivering Mountain Training leadership qualifications. It is intended to support providers with conversations about reasonable adjustments and candidates’ additional needs.
Our qualifications are competence-based. They certify that a candidate can operate independently within the scope of the qualification to the standard set out in the qualification syllabus. Reasonable adjustments allow for changes in how a competency is demonstrated, not what is demonstrated. Above all else, a nationally consistent standard must be upheld.
Mountain Training England applies the following principles to reasonable adjustments:
|
Not invalidating the prescribed syllabus requirements Mountain Training, providers and course staff must ensure any reasonable adjustment preserves the relevance, reliability and comparability of training and assessment. Not giving candidates an unfair advantage Mountain Training cannot approve adjustments that alter the syllabus criteria or minimum standard of competence, because this would undermine fairness and the integrity of the qualification. An adjustment for one person, must be applicable to all. Reflecting candidates assessment needs and usual methods of working Reasonable adjustments should reflect each candidate’s current needs and, where possible, their usual way of working. Any adjustment must be considered in context to ensure it does not compromise group safety or leadership in real-world use. |
Early and open dialogue between candidates and providers is the most important factor in a positive outcome. A constructive attitude towards candidate needs fosters an inclusive atmosphere. We ask providers to create the conditions for that dialogue from the moment a candidate makes contact.
Candidates can learn about Mountain Training’s approach to accessibility adjustments here.
General Outcomes
Outcome 1: Dialogue creates awareness — no formal adjustment needed
Sometimes, simply knowing about a candidate's individual differences is all that is required. An open and early conversation between the candidate and course staff creates the conditions for everyone to adapt naturally. The course proceeds with mutual awareness and a flexible teaching style that reflects high standards of delivery.
What providers should do: Invite disclosure early, ideally at the booking stage. Treat what is shared with sensitivity and confidence. Be open-minded. Reflect on the programme design or environment, and feel free to contact a technical officer for additional guidance. In many cases the answer is straightforward.
Case studies
|
Neurodiversity — ADHD | Rock Climbing Instructor Assessment Situation: A candidate disclosed prior to their Rock Climbing Instructor assessment that they had been diagnosed with ADHD. They were concerned this might affect how they were perceived during assessed sessions. What happened: The lead assessor noted the disclosure and shared it in brief with additional course staff. No formal adjustments were proposed or needed. Staff were conscious of giving the candidate time to complete tasks without interruption, and ensured instructions were clear and unambiguous. The candidate was not singled out or treated differently in the group due to the course director facilitating an inclusive attitude. |
|
Religious Practice — Prayer Times | Climbing Wall Instructor Training Situation: A candidate attending a Climbing Wall Instructor training course observed daily prayers and asked whether the programme could accommodate this. What happened: The provider reviewed the daily schedule and confirmed there were natural breaks during which prayer could be observed without disrupting the group's learning. The candidate identified a suitable private space at the centre. This required no structural change to the programme. |
|
Early Pregnancy | Hill and Moorland Leader Training Situation: A candidate disclosed early in her Hill and Moorland Leader training course that she was in the early stages of pregnancy. She was keen to continue and felt well. What happened: The provider acknowledged the disclosure with sensitivity. Training staff were aware and encouraged a deliberately relaxed pace of walking. The candidate was encouraged to communicate her comfort levels throughout. Minor pacing adjustments benefited the whole group and did not preclude access to remote terrain. |
Outcome 2: Reasonable adjustment made — candidate demonstrates competency
Some candidates require an agreed adjustment to ensure they can access training and assessment. These adjustments are consistent with training and/or assessment standards and are deemed fair to all. Mountain Training and its providers work together to find a appropriate middle ground, and the candidate is assessed against the full syllabus throughout.
What providers should do: Discuss the candidate's specific needs in advance and gain an idea of what sort of adjustment might be required of the candidate. Contact a technical officer to discuss further. Agreed adjustments should be recorded in ‘confidential comments’.
Case studies
|
Medical – Type 1 Diabetes | Lowland Leader Assessment Situation: A candidate with Type 1 diabetes registered for a Lowland Leader assessment. They managed their condition daily. They requested that planned rest stops account for blood glucose monitoring and that the group not be held up by these needs. Adjustment agreed: The candidate shared their management plan with the lead assessor before the course. Planned rest stops were built into each day's programme at appropriate intervals. The candidate carried all required food, kit and medication independently. The assessor team were aware of what to do in an emergency. Outcome: The candidate managed their condition without disruption to the programme. The assessment proceeded normally and the qualification was awarded. The candidate demonstrated independence in self-management, itself reflecting the kind of self-sufficiency expected of a leader. |
|
Visual Impairment — Partial Sight | Hill and Moorland Leader Training and Assessment Situation: A candidate on a Hill and Moorland Leader course was registered as partially sighted. Prior to training, there was genuine uncertainty over whether the qualification was achievable. Adjustments made: Two trainers were present on the course, which allowed for some additional support. The candidate was encouraged to experiment with a range of navigational techniques and equipment to enable them to navigate competently. By assessment, the candidate had developed their own system using a standard map supplemented by an enlarged version, which they referred to periodically. The assessor accommodated by allowing additional time to use these techniques. Outcome: The candidate demonstrated competence with navigation, and the qualification was awarded. |
Outcome 3: Proposed adjustment is unreasonable — standards cannot be compromised
Sometimes, a proposed adjustment would affect the minimum standard or course programme requirements. In these cases, the adjustment cannot be approved, Where Outcome 3 applies, Mountain Training England will explain the reasoning clearly and may suggest an alternative pathway.
What providers should do: If a candidate highlights certain needs or proposes an adjustment that you believe may conflict with the syllabus requirements, contact a technical officer before making any commitment.
Case studies
|
Foreseeable Conflict with Minimum Contact Hours | Hill and Moorland Leader Assessment Situation: A candidate booked onto a three-day Hill and Moorland Leader assessment had a pre-arranged medical appointment that would require them to leave the course halfway through day two and return on day three, missing a half day of assessment. Proposed adjustment: The candidate requested that the assessment be restructured to cover the full syllabus in that time. Why this cannot be accommodated: The minimum contact hours specified in the Hill and Moorland Leader scheme handbook are not a logistical preference — they are a syllabus requirement. The assessment programme is designed around those contact hours to ensure that all assessment criteria can be observed appropriately. Compressing the assessment would compromise the reliability and comparability of the outcome. The medical appointment, while completely understandable, was a foreseeable issue known at the point of booking. What happened: Mountain Training confirmed to the provider that the adjustment could not be sanctioned. The candidate was advised to attend a future assessment on dates that did not conflict with existing commitments, or to rearrange the appointment if possible. The candidate was encouraged to rebook. |
|
Request to Avoid Steep Ground | Mountain Leader Assessment Situation: A candidate with an acrophobia (fear of heights) sought to attend a Mountain Leader assessment. They proposed that any element of assessment involving travel over steep ground be omitted from their programme, because they did not intend to lead groups in such terrain once qualified. . Why this cannot be accommodated: Assessing candidates' ability to manage groups safely in steep ground is an integral component of the Mountain Leader syllabus. It cannot be separated from the assessment without altering the minimum standard. A qualified Mountain Leader is likely to encounter steep ground in mountainous terrain across the UK, and the public cannot be assumed to know the limitations of their qualified leader. What happened: The provider contacted Mountain Training to confirm their instinct that this adjustment was not possible. With the support of a technical officer, the provider had an empathic, but frank, conversation with the candidate and suggested that therapeutic work on the phobia, and further experience in the mountains managing steep ground, might be a productive step before returning to an assessment context. |
Outcome 4: Mountain Training England cannot award the qualification
This is the rarest of the four outcomes and is only reached after thorough dialogue and careful consideration. It occurs where MTE determines that the nature of a candidate's condition creates a foreseeable and unacceptable risk to the candidate themselves, or to others who they may lead in the future if qualified.
Mountain Training takes its own duty of care seriously. Outcome 4 is a determination that the specific qualification, given the demands of the role, cannot be awarded in good conscience.
Mountain Training fully adheres to The Equality Act 2010.
Outcome 4 is never reached without dialogue. Mountain Training encourages providers and candidates to contact us early if there is any uncertainty. In some cases, different qualifications offered by Mountain Training may remain appropriate and achievable.
Case studies
|
Neurological Condition – Uncontrolled Epilepsy | Mountain Leader Assessment Situation: A candidate with a diagnosis of epilepsy applied to attend a Mountain Leader assessment. Their seizures were not yet fully controlled through medication and remained unpredictable in their timing and nature. Consideration: Mountain Training engaged with the candidate at length and with genuine respect for their experience and ambitions. The specific issue was not the diagnosis itself, but the uncontrolled and unpredictable nature of the seizures. A Mountain Leader may find themselves in charge of a group in remote places where immediate incapacitation would leave the group without leadership in a potentially dangerous situation. Outcome: Mountain Training determined that the duty of care — both to the candidate and to any future group they might lead — precluded attendance at assessment while the condition remained uncontrolled. The candidate was encouraged to revisit this conversation with Mountain Training once their condition was stable and their treating clinician could confirm the seizures were well-managed. The decision was communicated with care and with that explicit route forward. |
Adaptive climbing on Mountain Training courses
Mountain Training considers ‘adaptive climbing’ to be where specialised equipment and techniques are used to enable individuals with physical disabilities to participate in courses.
Adaptive climbing on climbing instructor training and assessment courses
Dialogue in advance is essential to confirm whether or not the individual concerned is able to demonstrate competence ‘independently’ at assessment, across all syllabus criteria.
If adaptive climbing equipment and/or techniques are essential to allow participation, set up and/or managed by a 3rd party, it is likely the individual will not be able to demonstrate competence independently at assessment. This should be respectfully relayed to them.
Although it is possible an individual with these requirements could be accommodated on training courses it is important their expectations are managed before accepting them on the course. It is equally important their presence does not develop a miss-understanding of the scheme scope in those present.
Adaptive climbing on Rock Skills courses
‘Our skills courses are all about supporting people to be independent… rock climbers.’
Mountain Training place the individual participant’s needs at the centre of skills scheme delivery rather than stringent adherence to specific topics. As a result, assuming an individual’s presence doesn’t unduly impact on delivery or the safety of others in attendance (unlikely if well managed) it maybe possible to accommodate individuals with physical disabilities on Rock Skills courses. In many cases this will likely benefit all in attendance.
National consistency
Despite the individual centred approach it is important delivery stays within the confines of the specific Rock Skills course, be it an ‘Introduction’, ‘Intermediate’ or ‘Learn to lead…’. Doing so retains the integrity of the scheme and relevance of delivery.
As with all participants it is important to ensure a ‘good fit’ at the booking stage. If a participant’s disability would significantly restrict their ability to fully participate, the provider should discuss a more bespoke approach in advance to achieve a successful outcome.
Mountain Training course delivery
In all cases where specialised equipment and/or techniques are intended to be used the provider and/or course director/tutor must contact the relevant Board officer more than 5 days in advance to discuss the approach.
This will likely require a detailed description and evidence of the following;
- Individual’s/s specific requirements
- Suggested approach including reference to specialised equipment and/or techniques
- Potential locations to be used.
- The skill set and currency of *courses staff and other individuals who will be present facilitating access. This should include reference to any relevant training received (e.g Climbing For All)
- Risk assessment and mitigation strategies to be implemented
*Course staff – Max course staff ratios should be adhered to at all times. Where an additional individual is present to support access but does not hold the minimum qualification or have the minimum experience required, they must not be included within these ratios.
Further support
Mountain Training is committed to the belief that more people should have the opportunity to enjoy the activities we are passionate about. This guidance is intended to support and enable that — not to restrict it. Providers and candidates are encouraged to contact Mountain Training at any stage if they have questions about a specific situation.
Providers should keep a record of all reasonable adjustments put in place for their candidates. All information should be recorded in ‘Confidential Comments’ on the relevant course report.
Please visit mountain-training.org/help/support/reasonable-adjustments or contact your Mountain Training technical officer for further discussion.