On 11/14/07 8:03 AM, "rwest1 at unl.edu" <rwest1 at unl.edu> wrote: >> If this credential is to become a reality, we need to measure >> skill and knowledge in some way, rather than focusing on training. > > I will have to respectfully disagree with your statement. This is > like testing a student at the start of a semester and wondering that > they get stressed out and fail. A successful test depends on quality > teaching and teaching materials. Hi Richard, I wasn't very clear in the way I expressed myself. What I meant to say was that the credential itself needed to be based on a measurement of skill and knowledge, not on "having attended 'training'." I really don't think a credential based on having attended X classes at regionals and nationals would have a whole lot of credibility, other than showing that the person had at least gone to some effort to gain additional knowledge. It would be like a college degree based on classes one had audited. OTOH, I strongly agree with your idea that our major focus needs to be on training, on education. We establish the skill set and knowledge range, and then we offer a way to gain those. We (the caut committee) have been working in that direction for several years, and I think we have made steady if not dramatic progress. This coming year's institute will be a pretty big step forward. Should cautcom be working on a skills testing program? Well, if you had asked me a few months ago, I would have said no. I would have said that I would strongly support efforts to test skills beyond the current RPT level, but that should be done by the organization as a whole. But we were charged with doing just that by the president and the board. "It's Dale's fault!" And I have come to think that Dale is a pretty clever and pragmatic person. He is impatient and wants to get things done, accomplished while he is in office. A top priority for him, in the context of the long range plan, is development of specialized certifications. How to jump start the process? Appoint a committee to look into it and report to council? That would lead to a delay of probably many years down the pike. No, I think Dale figured he had a group within PTG that was committed (or ought to be <G>), dedicated and energetic. A group of people who had goals, and who had shown that they would work toward goals and accomplish things. So he gave us a challenge, or dumped something in our laps, depending how you want to look at it. Whether or not it comes to fruition in a practical way, IOW passed by council and implemented, I think the process will be a good one. Within the caut community, it forces us to be specific, to discuss and decide what skills we need, how we can obtain and/or teach those skills, how we can communicate better within the organization and within academia about this skill/knowledge set. Within PTG as a whole, it allows the possibility of discussion of testing "skills beyond RPT" in a less threatening context: "It's only for cauts." For the moment, anyway. An experiment that allows us to explore alternative ways of testing and certifying without the usual shouting match about the political morass of membership categories and standards and so forth. Not that it won't be controversial - it's controversial within the caut community. But maybe it has a little better chance of getting past the initial discussion stage. At any rate, for better or for worse, we are undertaking the task we were given. It's an interesting one. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC