Another note.......


My thoughts anyway.





>Certification representatives from each local chapter to be on the
>Certification Committee (some local chapters already have this person
>assigned

That me at this point....

My name is Frank Frank with the North Alabama IPC Designers Council.

Feedback from my group to Gary addressed the areas below as well.  I second
this opinion.

>1. The level A exam is too hard to be considered a Level A test.

The results give evidence of this....

>4. The Certification Test Process is vague. The contents of the Level A 
>exam,
>even after taking the workshop is vague. How to get more involved is vague.

We are frusterated that we have been able to provide no input to the process
to date. 


>5. The only Technical Literature for which the exam is based on is the
>IPC-D-275.

Without going to a workshop, we (at the local level) have no idea what is
required reading, what areas require a working knowledge etc.  It shouldn't
be too difficult to study for if this is an accreditation, especially for
experienced employed designers.

>6. Is this Certification supposed to educate or to accreditation current
>knowledge?

A major question.  We at the local level are involved in training and
helping designers to become more proficient at their job.  Therefore is the
accreditation to show what has been learned through the councils,
experience, etc.  Or is it supposed to reflect how well the designer
understands and is able to put into practice specific standards or current
knowledge?

>7. What are the responsibilities of a Level A person?

We don't feel this has been clearly defined.

Our suggestions:

EVERYONE recognizes being tested has benefits.  Especially if they are done
by an independant group.  The problem that many are seeing has to do with
the concerns of time and money involved to reach a preset goal (which they
have no control of).   

We would like to recommend that workshops be provided through local groups
as a part of the training they are already providing.  This would strengthen
and grow the local chapters, as well as provide a cheaper means to get
everyone the materials required for testing.

We beleive the specific areas to be covered by testing should have some
study guide available, for instance expressing specifically which page and
and section specific questions will be covering.  This information should be
provided a fair amount of time before testing will begin.  In addition,
while specific wording of a test question should not be given, perhaps a
prepator questionaire could be created that would allow a person to "self
test" and see what areas he/she needed to study.  This is no difference that
SAT tests etc.  

We think training could be done via video tape, study guides provided, or
training sessions administered by specifically selected members of each council.

Communication with local chapters stink.  There should be regular mailings
to chapter designated officers as well as current status of specific items
on this medium.  Its starting to happen, but it seems to be so little
information available so late in the season.  We recommend a monthly set of
minutes, or letter at the national level, posted either in this forum (which
means it could be more regular than monthly) and to a designated chapter
officer who would cover it at each chapter meeting.



>Next Objective:   "Validate the Level A Test".

No one will consider it valid if 50% of those taking the testfail....
unless they are just plain un qualified.  The only way this can be
determined is to create a list of UNDERSTANDABLE goals and standards that
each level should be able to meet.  If this has been done, it has not been
adequately communicated to local chapters.  

One method of deciding what is pass or fail, would be to test all levels of
designers with one test.  Then, each section of the test must be passed by a
certain percentile.  This smacks of when we were all graded in high school
on a bell curve.  Certainly this curve would establish the most elite,
compared to the entry level designer.  Once some numbers on the curve were
known, and some of the questions that COULDN'T be passed by the A Level
designers were known, the tests could be re-written.



>Suggestions for building a New Foundation:

>A. Set up a Certification Committee and a Certification Review Committee.
>B. Use the Designers Council Email System to let the Industry define the 
>main objectives for Certification Exam. 1.) Education or Accreditation 2.)
Levels 
>and the detailed responsibilities of each level.

These are great suggestions.

>F. The Committee will set up a philosophy of how Training should be
>conducted.
>This is  determined from whether this program is to be education  or
>accreditation.
> 1. If the objective is to educate, then Training needs to be longer and a
>Teacher Tutorial should be developed so that people like Mary Sudgen, or
>others that will never take this test, can provide this Training.
> 2. If the objective is to accreditation, then a one day workshop or
>guidebook should be enough to familiarize people with the terminology and
the contents
>to study for the test.


I personally think that both training and accreditation can be accomplished.
And while I feel it is important to keep specifics about the test obscure, I
see know reason why training manuals, sample tests, and so forth could not
be provided.  In addition I think it is important to empower local chapters
to instruct members so that they can pass.  Forinstance, allowing a level A
to teach others whats involved in passing level A, a level B, whats involved
in passing a level B etc.  This is how most of us have learned the trade
anyway, from one person or group of associated to another.

Frank Frank of the North Alabama IPC Designers Council