Friday 28 December 2018

ON CPD POINTS - WHAT'S THE POINT?



I had mentioned to a colleague that I was not going to write on this subject again, as all previous texts have done nothing; the same game goes on and on unchanged, unchallenged: but the spirit has moved.



The question is almost biblical: what must one do to be re-registered, to renew registration? In Queensland, architects are controlled by the Board of Architects, (BOAQ#), a body that registers architects to ensure quality in the profession and its reputation, in short, to control the charlatans.* Some say that the board is now an anachronism, a leftover from the Victorian days of 'professionalism' seen as a 'clubby' class distinction defining a bespoke, skilled, learned elite. The cynic suggests that registration, even controlling how the word 'architect' is used to describe a personal skill, means very little. The word has got out of control in general usage: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/07/architect-of.html
As Wren's epitaph says, but with a different revelation today: . ' . . look around.' Is the world a better place for this strict supervision?



While the public is able to be ripped off, and abused and ignored by just about anybody and everybody else in this world, even with legal controls, (think of plumbers and politicians), the BOAQ has taken upon itself - well, no, has been given the role via legislation - to protect the public from dodgy impostors, imposers who might falsely promote themselves as architects. Here lies, the cynic says, the evidence of its failure - well, no, the Board's ineffectiveness: our world is growing uglier every day in spite of this legal rigour. It seems that strict management of the profession has not made the world a more beautiful, or a better place.



But the law is the law, and the BOAQ has the role to police and enforce; to register and re-register; and to discipline. For formal re-registration, an architect has to comply with the set of conditions that have to be met in order to annually renew one's registration. It is the Board that both determines exactly what these requirements might be, and enforces them. It has published a document outlining the requirements: see: https://www.boaq.qld.gov.au/images/Documents/CPD/120215_CPD_Policy.pdf
The requirement is for Continuing Professional Development - CPD. Some call it 'Compulsory' PD because it is. The Board enforces this 'development' by measuring it, using a point system to identify outcomes and quantity. Architects have to accrue a certain number of points - 10 formal, 10 informal - and swear to God, on the basis that a false claim might see them charged, that they have, 'cross my heart,' undertaken the CPD work required in order to be re-registered. Random audits always threaten to check and test the declaration. One wonders, how is 'random' managed?



This is how the Board has decided that the renewal of registration should be handled. The Act gives guidance to the Board on this matter. Section 16 outlines the things that the Board can consider, may take into account, when it is assessing an application for re-registration, for the renewal of a registration. There are four sub-clauses in Section 16.2 that have been written into the Act to guide the Board, if not to direct it. These are of interest. Section 16.2 reads:


The requirements may include requirements about the following -
(a) the nature, extent and period of practice of architecture by the applicant;
(b) the nature and extent of continuing professional development to be undertaken by the applicant;
(c) the nature and extent of research, study or teaching, relating to architecture, to be undertaken by the applicant;
(d) the nature and extent of administrative work, relating to architecture, to be undertaken by the applicant.

Section 16.3 formally sums up:
The requirements are satisfied by complying with the Board's continuing registration requirements for architecture.


One assumes that someone has given careful thought to these requirements to have them scheduled in a legal document. They all make some sense, in some general way, but the Board has chosen to ignore selected items in its rules, well, requirements - the word is repeated enough - and concentrated on others. Why?


The issue has been explored previously - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/05/who-or-what-is-architect.html Here the lack of any precise definitions, making things vague and fuzzy, has been noted, along with the problems in ignoring the particular items in the current re-registration requirements.


Section 16.2 (a) seems self- evident in its importance, but the Board chooses to ignore it. Surely experience is relevant, and deserves recognition as a part of one's right to be re-registered - the writers of the Act believed so - but there is no indication in the Board's requirements that experience means anything at all. The master and the novice are both treated the same. Both could go to the same set of trivial events and gain sufficient points for re-registration, with the presentations meaning nothing to either but being there. Attendance becomes a waste of meaningful time beyond the gaining the required points to satisfy Board rules.
Section 16.2 (b) is the section the the Board appears to have latched on to, setting up rules and requirements for CPD to be re-registered - see the Board's document above.
Section 16.2 (c) is interesting as it allows the Board to recognize research, study or teaching experience. One assumes that academics who never practice, but are registered as architects, rely on this section for re-registration which the Board seems to accept. One wonders why this is so, when registration has to do with practice and looking after the public. This stance only makes the neglect of (a) puzzling, when the experience in actual practice means nothing in any assessment for re-registration.


The concern is that if any group should be continually improving, keeping up with the times, as CPD seems to want to try to promote, then it is the academic group that needs to be undertaking constant, managed improvement that is repeatedly reviewed. Why have ill-informed academics teaching the future profession?


Architecture is a diverse field, so one can understand the broad scope outlined in Section 16.2, even the inclusion of the academic world, but 16.2 (d) seems to allow anything - 'administrative work' - as long as it relates to the scope of interests called 'architecture' that is never clearly defined. This all seems too much for the Board to cope with, as it has simplistically locked everyone into the count of CPD points, into (b), while ignoring (d) and (a), and accommodating (c) to suit the academic need. One wonders: are there academics on the Board? Just what one does to get these preferred points required by (b) appears random, ad hoc, irrelevant to any particular circumstance - and architecture has many.


Who checks the relevance and quality of the tasks undertaken to gain points? The events attended could be trivial, or hardly relevant at all to one's particular interests and skills. All one has to do, apparently, is to attend. Ah! but the Board has this covered. One, it has been said on various occasions, has to write a report on the event and submit it, like a primary school student after a field excursion, just to prove the 'learning experience;' to show that one was paying attention.


While the Board is not specific on this matter, such reporting has been requested from time to time. The idea does suggest the nanny state, where everyone except the assessors are treated as children who have to comply and perform. Who is going to assess who, and what is going to happen if one fails to achieve a level of - ? . . . whatever it might be that another sees as being insufficient or unsatisfactory? Is one kept in detention; does one have to write out the correct answer one hundred times - both, if someone is unhappy with the response? This is the problem with measurement and counting - the evaluation: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2018/12/educating-profession-cpd-occasion-exam.html
Is there an evaluation sub-committee of the Board? Does the Act specify this? The questions involve: who, what, when, where, how? Not unusually, the demand for points is used to promote programmes of whatever quality, even as promotional fund-raisers, and no one appears to care.


One has to ask, why bother to check written reports when there is no accreditation for those running point-accruing occasions. Here we get into a strange circumstance. An academic may seemingly accrue points by running a point-accruing event. Maybe by repeating the presentation for various regions, the same academic might be able to gain all points for CPD satisfaction from the identical presentation - ?


There is something very odd here. Academics are expected to undertake research, study and teaching; it is their job. Rarely do they practice, and if they do it is usually in a rarified world. So it appears likely that academics can gain re-registration points just by doing their job. This anomaly makes the rejection of (a) look odd, as (a) involves more than just doing one's job; it involves time, scope and depth - history, experience and performance. Yet this first sub-section remains ignored as an irrelevance by the Board, a stance reinforced by its easy accreditation of non-practising academics. Oddly, the idea of 'non-practising' is kept for any retired architects who might like to pay to remain policed by the Board in their days of leisure, to ensure that they do not practise: seehttps://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-does-non-practising-architect-do.html

Puzzlingly, one cannot even gain points by reading a book, or by travelling less than three months, when either the book or the short trip could be transformative, and mean much more than some paid presentation on the cost and performance of, say, coloured concrete: '1 formal point.' An academic repeating normal work tasks every year, can apparently re-register annually with this hiccup pattern of employment that has zilch to do with practice, other than, ironically, to train students, young architects for the world of practice. Surely this role places more importance on evaluating academics than on architects in practice; but the Board seems to think otherwise, at least in the demand for points.


But who evaluates the worth of one point? Some events are worth 1.5 points. What is it that adds the 0.5? Why not 2? There seems to be much ad hoc fuzziness in the certain demands of the 10 / 10 count that echoes the vagueness of the Act itself, a legal document that, as previously noted, avoids any precise definition of architecture. What's the point of having points when the point value is randomly assigned for presentations that are never qualitatively assessed? What is the point of accruing points for events that mean nothing for one's activities and interests beyond getting some boxes ticked to make re-registration possible, with the required 'proven' proof?


It seems that this whole policing of re-registration has not been thought through beyond the school-teacher's mentality. Even though the Act offers its broad outline for renewal of registration, everything has been narrowed down to points, numbers, ticks and crosses. The Act allows for much more to be included. If CPD is to mean anything, then the current arrangement needs to be scrapped and thought through again. Counting, checking and assessing appear to have taken precedence over experience and genuine learning. If there is to be lifetime learning - which there should be - then professionals need to be treated as adults who can be encouraged to do more, if they need this prompting at all, by generating and stimulating a genuine interest in their work. One would expect a professional of any standing to constantly undertake study and research, and teaching or mentoring, just out of a primal, core interest in the profession, as a matter of course.


Given this circumstance, a CPD regime could be envisaged, and implemented, that could inspire folk to investigate and grow. The current situation is demeaning. There needs to be much more respect for architects, and much more trust too. The CPD requirements need to be far more open, inclusive and creative, so that they generate, not boring evenings in class, tests and reports, but a vibrant interaction in the architectural world and beyond, where the enthusiasm of youth and the wisdom of experience can fire energies now being depressed, suppressed by the Board police. Policing - strict, threatening enforcement - only ever generates the attitude of snide, apparent compliance, come hell or high water, when the ambition should be for a contented and keen continuing involvement in all aspects of this marvellous profession. With this latter enthusiasm for participation, we will see the blossoming of practice, rather than the squashing of interests into the 10 / 10 pattern filled with time-wasting trivia and irrelevance, where only the count is important. Such a change might gain the Board the respect it has currently lost, as it is presently ruthlessly mocked by those it seeks to manage. One needs to be wary: treat folk like immature fools . . . only at your peril, for you will only get foolish, cynical responses.


The Board seems happy with its limited policing role, sending out blunt, threatening messages to those it registers. If the role of the Board is to promote architecture by protecting the public, maintaining confidence, and upholding standards,* then it needs to become more proactive and begin positive programmes that might properly engage the architectural community and the public. It would be interesting to see the finances of the Board, to see how fees are currently spent; to investigate how the money might be better spent to achieve better, more productive, more creative outcomes in a profession that considers itself both productive and creative. In this regard, counting appears to be the lowest denominator. Even kindergartens know this and encourage play as a learning experience rather than measured pre-schooling.
The Board needs to learn from this circumstance.



* EXTRACT FROM THE ACT
Section 3 Main objects of Act
(a) to protect the public
(b) to maintain public confidence
(c) to uphold standards

#
THE PROBLEM WITH ACRONYMS
The concern with acronyms is the search for one that is unique and memorable. Only too often do the letters refer to an obscure set of other entities. The RAIA, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, was a unique set of letters that was muddled with the dropping of the 'Royal,' although this was desirable. AIA is well known as the American Institute of Architects. Trying to make it also mean the 'Australian Institue of Architects' can cause confusion. The Institute had little choice: both IAA and AAI have multiple references to very different bodies. At least AIA is another architectural group. The BOAQ is an odd tag that references a diverse set of bodies, as a Google search will reveal. Sometimes there is no choice.

































No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.