Hello Chris and all - just a few questions thus :-
a) are "Insituted professionals" really "workers" ? Oh how I wish we were !
b) How can a degree be of value ?
c) Will this conversation continue ?
I guess I am asking all too simple questions but that is all I feel able to do.
The "nitty-gritty" of it all grinds the simplicity of the axe being sharpened on
the stone.
For there is a "Hole in my Bucket" - dear OAE, a hole.
It is a whirlpool a whirlpool and swim as you will,
It is a vor-text a vortext a votext a votext and it is a whim as you will,
It is a (con)text) as context as context as context, it is a ....
hole in our bucket, dear Institute a hole.
In God we Tru$t;
from the joker and the taster of all things good for Kings and Queens,
from the clowns and from the street ;
We do , indeed, rebel from our circus and carnival condition, most joyfully.
If in the God we tru$t is a water that we can not drink then "God Bless You".
best wishes from the swamp and the little monsters that help us
best wishes from the aged rock that no longer feels strong
best wishes from the nothing too - best wishes from the dark side
best wishes from that kind of adventure that most folk will understand
best wishes from the anti-initsitution of real workers and work
God Ble$$ America and England in those dark satanic mills of war,
Let the wars go on.and on and on and on .........
As that guitar keeps on playing may we slowly weep.
As OAE keeps on saying let us sleep and let us get institutionalsed and holy.
And the war goes on !
God ble$$ God and God kills God in the holy wars of absurdity and risk.
That guitar weeps the song of saying sorry.
But the ble$$ing continues and the war goes on.
The war goes on.
Damn your credits and fast-time tracks of indifference.
I refuse the ble$$ing and I do confirm just that.
I need a time and a place to "be" away from war.
I say no more
steve bowles
Chris Loynes wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The UK based Institute of Outdoor Learning (IOL) has begun a consultation
> about the introduction of some form of professional accreditation for
> outdoor learning workers. If you are not a member but want to comment you
> can get a form from Randall Williams on <[log in to unmask]>
>
> The questions are also asking about the value of degrees, outdoor coaching
> and leadership awards from NGB's, vocational awards, competency approaches
> as well as accreditation. One question asks about these being provided
> centrally by the IOL as a one stop shop. This affects many of us in further
> and higher education.
>
> The proposal is based on a strong endorsement for the idea given to the
> Institute from the field when it asked what were the priorities for a new
> professional body - IOL?
>
> At the risk of boring overseas list members I've put my response to the open
> questions in the form below to start a possible thread about HE's part in
> this here and elsewhere. I think there is an international dimension to
> this. Would a UK accreditation have validity some where else for example?
> Should an accredited person from somewhere else be able to practice in the
> UK? Will this conversation begin in my country now its started in the UK?
>
> ***************************
>
> To the 8 extra questions:
>
> How important is an academic base qualification?
>
> What base? I believe they (HND's and undergraduate and postgraduate degrees)
> are critical (but not exclusively so - there are other ways these things can
> be developed) to the base of a professional practitioner who can develop,
> provide and evaluate their work in the context of the social, economic,
> environmental and political world in which he or she operates. I believe a
> personal, experiential base of practice outdoors is equally important.
>
> In some ways it does not matter what course. Different bodies of knowledge
> and ways of thinking are part of our richness. In others it does as the
> field becomes more established, complex and integrated. There is a body of
> knowledge and ways of thinking that are unique to this field. This is not
> only important to the individual aspirant but also the field establishing
> itself in society and developing a critical interpretation of its work
> through an academic group.
>
> I am concerned about undergraduate degrees in their current form as the way
> to do this. the outdoor experience is often absent in a first year
> undergraduate who hopes to acquire it through the degree. In a small way
> they can but this, on its own, is not I believe the best way to a passionate
> professional with an experience base to motivate and inform their work. I
> would certainly like to see more MA provision such as Moray House, St.
> Martin's and Sheffield Hallam and continued HND provision (which attracts
> many mature students retraining) such as Bicton.
>
> A degree should not be understood as all you need to be a practitioner. It
> must be understood like doctors and teachers as a start after which or
> alongside which an apprenticeship is served. I think undergraduate degrees
> should consider sandwich models or offer part semester structures to allow
> students parallel personal and work experience leading to vocational
> outcomes.
>
> I do not think a degree is essential to volunteer or seasonal staff.
>
> Should accreditation be an active assessment process or a paper based
> process?
>
> I like the CIPD model. It respects and trusts members, has an ethical base,
> allows diversity, is cheap to implement and yet still gives control in
> fraudulent or malpractice situations. The application and CPD element makes
> it an active process.
>
> How should we define the core skills?
>
> I'm not sure there are any when you consider the full breadth of the field.
>
> How might we assess the less easily defined competences?
>
> Self or peer assessment not based on centralised models of competence but
> personal and organisational needs. Lets not get into to centralised control
> here.
>
> Should criteria be set low or high, inclusive or exclusive?
>
> This assumes a heirarchical structure of criteria that can be measured in
> some way. I'm not sure this is true or workable. How could I set the
> competence of a worker at an adventure centre alongside the leadership of a
> community sustainability project. If anyone judges themselves competent it
> should be the individual with their peers. Not the institute or the
> competence police. In this way, like a PA full value contract, each
> application is a conversation about what is professional practice in a given
> context and not a generalised hurdle to jump. Many will not recognise the
> hurdle. Others will always say too high, too low, wrong hurdle, etc.
>
> How might we work with NGB's?
>
> Your guess is as good as mine! But this is where change needs to occur. The
> tyranny of the NGB as a license to practice must be challenged. How to be a
> volunteer coach does not prepare anyone to be involved in personal
> development work yet this is often all that is asked for. It does not
> support the person who raft builds when the client asks to see the raft
> building qualification. it does not support any practitioner on their fourth
> compulsory child protection course to maintain yet another NGB award as
> current.
>
> The question you didn't ask but I want to answer.
>
> My biggest question about accreditation links with my last comment on NGB's.
> What happens to the professional teacher/nurse/ youth worker/etc who works
> partly in OL? Will their professionalism be devalued, excluded or even
> denied by not being accredited by another professional body they do not
> relate to? This could shut down opportunity taking more of our time outdoors
> away from the community and putting it in centres with professionals. This
> further professionalisation of a community activity would I believe be
> against the interests of society and counter to the best intentions of OL.
> We need to make the outdoors accessible to all - individuals, communities,
> other professional people; and not shut people in unless accompanied out.
> This bigger question of how we are part of the separation from nature and
> not part of the connection to it is central here and should I think be
> debated.
>
> Good luck.
>
> regards
>
> Chris Loynes
|