Residency requirements - licensing implications

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by PsychPhD, Mar 15, 2007.

Loading...
  1. simon

    simon New Member

     
  2. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    Yep, we're out there . . . whether you like it or not. And Simon is right - my truck does provide a form of catharsis from the wazoos who attempt to worm their way into licensed professions with a dumbed-down perspective.

    The bottom line, however, is that there is at least one party that agrees with me - the most important one in this particular case: The State of Kansas.

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    But seriously, I've had my say on this one - talk amongst yourselves... :D
     
  3. PsychPhD

    PsychPhD New Member

    In fact ...

    Actually, Kizmet, the court cases -- Covington-Kent v. Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulartory Board and Caporale v. KBSRB -- were already decided in 2005 (but only recently posted to the KBSRB website).

    Hence, the concern ...

    Covington-Kent concerned a Capella grad and Walden grad Caporale appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals.

    As previously discussed, in Caporale, the Court of Appeals conceded the point that the residency requirement does not necessarily mean physical presence. However, they upheld that part of the denial after literally counting the days a Walden student spends in face-to-face learning.

    Simon is right that it is encouraging that several states and provinces have licensed distance program grads. However, "several" does not mean "all" and there are many remaining states which have yet to evaluate a distance grad's application. When boards do decide on an application, they often will review other jurisdictions' decisions. The simple fact that the Kansas BSRB has gone so far as to post these decisions on its website under the heading "Distance Learning" seems to be a drawing of a line in the sand saying "Hell, no, this way we will not go."

    I understand the sentiment shared by many - hey, it's just Kansas (the state that, at one point, decreed all science classes had to teach evolution).

    Still, good, bad, or indifferent, they are a state in the Union and other licensing boards could potentially cite their decision (and court rulings) as precedent.

    Simon also raises the valid point -- where are the schools on this? When I enrolled in Capella's clinical psych PhD program in 2000, we were given the impression that APA accreditation was "around the corner." Accordingly, students were discouraged from directly contacting APA or licensing boards for fear of "poisoning the well." However, a year later, when they were denied a different professional accreditation, Capella decided to reassemble the clinical program. They did away with all clinical subspecialties and converted the program from a PhD to a PsyD. They withdrew their most recent APA accreditation application when they were told they could not count the previous PhD graduates as part of the PsyD program's application.

    Today, Capella's program literature CLEARLY indicates there are no promises made about licensure and students are solely and absolutely responsible for navigating on their own.

    I agree with Simon, with some concerted advocacy, the status of distance programs could easily be elevated. However, in the case of Capella's psych graduates, they have totally cut us loose to fend for ourselves. Instead of a campaign to sell the quality of the programs, we get the bizarrely ambiguous "Over 1,000 institutions of higher education have hired Capella graduates."

    :: sigh ::
     
  4. simon

    simon New Member

    PsychPhD: Simon is right that it is encouraging that several states and provinces have licensed distance program grads. However, "several" does not mean "all" and there are many remaining states which have yet to evaluate a distance grad's application. When boards do decide on an application, they often will review other jurisdictions' decisions. The simple fact that the Kansas BSRB has gone so far as to post these decisions on its website under the heading "Distance Learning" seems to be a drawing of a line in the sand saying "Hell, no, this way we will not go."

    SIMON: I believe that there are more than "several" states and more like twenty! It is also important to acknowledge that even under the best of circumstances not all state boards of licensure will accept graduates with traditional Clinical Psychology doctorates.

    PsychPHD: I understand the sentiment shared by many - hey, it's just Kansas (the state that, at one point, decreed all science classes had to teach evolution).

    SIMON: Not at all! One is too many. However, the issue remains how best to pursue this matter and hopefully with a positive outcome.

    PsychPhd: Simon also raises the valid point -- where are the schools on this? When I enrolled in Capella's clinical psych PhD program in 2000, we were given the impression that APA accreditation was "around the corner." Accordingly, students were discouraged from directly contacting APA or licensing boards for fear of "poisoning the well." However, a year later, when they were denied a different professional accreditation, Capella decided to reassemble the clinical program. They did away with all clinical subspecialties and converted the program from a PhD to a PsyD. They withdrew their most recent APA accreditation application when they were told they could not count the previous PhD graduates as part of the PsyD program's application.

    SIMON: Capella had a doctoral program entitled "Professional Counseling" attracting a number of students with masters degrees in counseling. In midstream, without any forewarning or seeking student input, they revamped the academic content of the program (although allowing students to maintain the title of "Professional Counseling" on their transcripts) and reclassified it as "Counseling Studies". Now if one is familar with such fields as "Social Studies" or any other academic credential that ends with the term "Studies" it is no longer a clinical practice oriented related degree but an academic one. I can understand the need to make changes when required by accrediting agencies but not to seek student participation in the decision and to be out of touch with the fact that a number of students entered this program because of the title "Professional Counseling" said quite a bit about the mind-set of the Administrators at this school at the time.

    PsychPhd:Today, Capella's program literature CLEARLY indicates there are no promises made about licensure and students are solely and absolutely responsible for navigating on their own.

    I agree with Simon, with some concerted advocacy, the status of distance programs could easily be elevated. However, in the case of Capella's psych graduates, they have totally cut us loose to fend for ourselves. Instead of a campaign to sell the quality of the programs, we get the bizarrely ambiguous "Over 1,000 institutions of higher education have hired Capella graduates."

    SIMON: Unfortunately it is a sad commentary for the graduates of these programs but not unexpected. The bottomline and priority is money not advocacy for their student body. In fact if one examines the advocacy positions of such professional organizations such as the APA, ACA and NASWA one will find that the primary focus is on promoting socio-political positions rather than on proactive growth, recognition and image building that has severely been eroded over the years in the mental health professions. The advent and growth of the Psy.D has contributed to this erosion in the field of Clinical Psychology due to the fact that a number of these graduates are referred to as "doctor" when in fact many are not up to par with the intellectual/academic standards expected of doctoral level Psychologists.
     
  5. GME

    GME New Member

    Oh, I thought there was a desire for serious conversation.

    My mistake.

    Regards,
    GME
     
  6. chrislarsen

    chrislarsen New Member

    I am currently a student at Fielding in the Ph.D. program and this action by the state of Kansas is disturbing. However, licensure boards have very broad discretion in determining if a candidate meets the criteria set for licensure. Typically Fielding graduates have had no problem due to the fact that Fielding is APA accreditted. That fact makes it difficult for licensure boards to deny licensure on the basis of residency since APA has a one year in residency or equivalent requirement for accredited programs. Few licensure boards are going to conclude that APA guidelines are insufficient. Any court challenge to a board that denies licensure to a Fielding graduate would probably fail. In particular, this would be true in a state where a board has previously granted licensure to other Fielding graduates.

    Mention was made earlier on tis thread that Fielding had to threaten APA with a lawsuit over accreditation a few years ago. Actually, in the past APA made some arbitrary decisions regarding accreditation and Fielding had to go to an appeal board which rapidly concluded that APA was behaving in an irrational arbitrary manner and was subjecting Fielding to a standard different than the ones it hold B&M schools to. From my understanding the appeal meeting lasted about 10 minutes before a decision in Fieldings favor was rendered. As the unfortunate commentary by Steve Levicoff indicates, prejudie against non-traditional learning exists everywhere. In its dealings with APA, Fielding has consistently had to demonstrate that its learning model is equivalent to that offered by more traditional programs.

    Currently APA is attempting to develop more objective standards for determining what the "equivalent therof" clause in the accreditation guidelines actually mean. This may be either positive or negative for schools like Fielding or Capella. Once APA develops a specific standard or set of standards regarding how a year in residence is determined, the state of Kansas and other licensure boards would be hard pressed to utilize a more stringent standard.
     
  7. GME

    GME New Member


    That would be most welcome, I think.

    Regards,
    GME
     
  8. chrislarsen

    chrislarsen New Member

    The APA is soliciting requests from the public prior to the implementation or development of residency standards. My reading of their stated goals suggests that they are open minded and supportive of distributed learning. This is becoming increasingly important for APA as schools other than Fielding apply for accreditation. My reading of the following statement is quite positive vis a vis non-traditional programs. Interesting if one looks at teh APA website for public commentary, it has degenerated into a debate about the merits of DL training in general and does not address residency per se. Perhaps some of the other psych folks woul find this of interest. The accreditation committee states:

    The Accreditation Guidelines and Principles for doctoral graduate programs currently require of each student a minimum of 3 full-time academic years of graduate study (or the equivalent thereof) and state that at least 2 of the 3 academic training years (or the equivalent thereof) must be at the institution from which the doctoral degree is granted, and at least 1 year of which must be in full-time residence (or the equivalent thereof) at that same institution. The term “the equivalent thereof” has been a part of the Guidelines and Principles since 1996, and the CoA is currently making efforts to better define what is meant by this term and to determine what standards it will use to evaluate programs providing “the equivalent thereof” the residency requirements as stated in Domain A.4. Therefore, the CoA is proposing a new Implementing Regulation defining “the equivalent thereof” for residency requirements in Domain A.4 of the Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional Psychology for doctoral graduate programs. While this Implementing Regulation will not change the standards that are currently a part of the Guidelines and Principles, the CoA is requesting comments and reactions from all interested individuals and organizations on this policy statement that would have implications for any programs providing the equivalent thereof the current residency requirements. This proposal is available for comments from November 14, 2006 until May 14, 2007. In an effort to promote thoughtful discussion, the CoA is providing an electronic-based comment form for public comment submission. Comments and other information, including the users’ identity, will be public. Email addresses used in the registration will be kept confidential. The CoA will consider all comments received and make any appropriate revisions prior to voting on the proposal. On behalf of the CoA, thank you for your review and comments


    I view this as pro DL, but perhaps my optimismis misplaced!

    Chris
     
  9. chrislarsen

    chrislarsen New Member

    The APA is soliciting requests from the public prior to the implementation or development of residency standards. My reading of their stated goals suggests that they are open minded and supportive of distributed learning. This is becoming increasingly important for APA as schools other than Fielding apply for accreditation. My reading of the following statement is quite positive vis a vis non-traditional programs. Interesting if one looks at teh APA website for public commentary, it has degenerated into a debate about the merits of DL training in general and does not address residency per se. Perhaps some of the other psych folks woul find this of interest. The accreditation committee states:

    The Accreditation Guidelines and Principles for doctoral graduate programs currently require of each student a minimum of 3 full-time academic years of graduate study (or the equivalent thereof) and state that at least 2 of the 3 academic training years (or the equivalent thereof) must be at the institution from which the doctoral degree is granted, and at least 1 year of which must be in full-time residence (or the equivalent thereof) at that same institution. The term “the equivalent thereof” has been a part of the Guidelines and Principles since 1996, and the CoA is currently making efforts to better define what is meant by this term and to determine what standards it will use to evaluate programs providing “the equivalent thereof” the residency requirements as stated in Domain A.4. Therefore, the CoA is proposing a new Implementing Regulation defining “the equivalent thereof” for residency requirements in Domain A.4 of the Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional Psychology for doctoral graduate programs. While this Implementing Regulation will not change the standards that are currently a part of the Guidelines and Principles, the CoA is requesting comments and reactions from all interested individuals and organizations on this policy statement that would have implications for any programs providing the equivalent thereof the current residency requirements. This proposal is available for comments from November 14, 2006 until May 14, 2007. In an effort to promote thoughtful discussion, the CoA is providing an electronic-based comment form for public comment submission. Comments and other information, including the users’ identity, will be public. Email addresses used in the registration will be kept confidential. The CoA will consider all comments received and make any appropriate revisions prior to voting on the proposal. On behalf of the CoA, thank you for your review and comments


    I view this as pro DL, but perhaps my optimismis misplaced!

    Chris
     
  10. PsychPhD

    PsychPhD New Member

    If you believe in this ... go share your opinion

    I agree with Chris that much of the commentary has devolved to a pro- vs. anti-DL debate. Still, there are many thoughful and thought-provoking statements posted.

    If this is something that matters to you, go and share your feelings.

    The direct URL is below (APA.org can be confusing to navigate)

    http://apaoutside.apa.org/AccredSurvey/Public/Logon.asp?t=084111

    FYI - One of the posters (John Caporale) is the same person who sued the State of Kansas (see my earlier posts).
     
  11. chrislarsen

    chrislarsen New Member

    Yes APA seems to be soliciting opinions and suggestions about how to determine equivalent residency and many of the posters have not responded directly or even indirectly to the question. Instead it seems to have degenerated into a set of pro and anti DL camps in which individuals present opinions only. However, some posters have brougt up the fact that there is NO research data to suggest that DL students are inferior as psychologists vis a vis brick and mortar. Psychology is supposed to be a profession based on empirical research not polemics and ideology. APA itself commissioned a study in 2001 that recognized the capacity of DL education to offer the same quality of education as more traditional venues but noted that no empirical data yet had been gathered on this. The 2001 APA study was more theoretical in nature.

    The fact remains that by giving Fielding accreditation in the early 1990's and by continuing to accredit Fielding, the APA has de-facto endorsed a training model and a set of residency guidelines as being equivalent. As an accrediting agency under the supervision of the Department of Education, the APA probably does not have the legal ability to revoke the equivalency proviso. If they attempted to do so, Fielding would probably go to an arbitration boad at the DOE and win its case. However, a set of guidelines endorsed by APA would give licensing boards a coherent guideline as well.
     
  12. AGS

    AGS New Member

    i agree with you pug


    yea , how can people stereotype a school ?
     
  13. PsychPhD

    PsychPhD New Member

    Well, it's happening ...

    Folks,

    I appreciate the indignation being expressed over some of the less-than-enlightened commentary being offered in this forum.

    But let's not lose sight of the very real fact that what transpires here is little more than rhetorical sparring and the same attitudes are expressed out in the world, with much more serious consequences.

    I don't know, is just the rarified experience of distance-earned clinical psychology graduates? Are we the only ones, ironically, facing this sort of systemic ignorance.

    As has been pointed out, 20 US and Canadian jurisdictions have licensed distance psychology graduates. While that's encouraging, it represents less than 1/3 of the total number of jurisdictions (US states & territories + Canadian provinces & territories = 68).

    Personally, someone has reported to an alumni group that a northeastern state's licensing board told her flat out that her distance earned Master's degree would not be accepted. No, "it'll have to be evaluated." No, "you'll have to show equivalence." Just, "no."

    Is anyone hitting this wall?

    More importantly, what can be done about it?
     
  14. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I'm not a psychologist or a doctoral student and given the white-hot temperature of this thread, I'm hesitant to say anything. (The Degreeinfo shrinks will rip my personality defects to shreds!)

    But it is interesting... I can't control myself...

    First off, there's some ambiguity regarding whether "the equivalent thereof" is referring to "full time" or to "residence". Addressing "full time" first, it doesn't seem very difficult to define part-time equivalencies. Require the same number of hours of classroom and/or practical experiences. If students are putting in fewer hours per week, then increase the number of weeks to compensate.

    But whether it's full-time or part-time, this year (or year-equivalent) is supposed to be in "residency" and the definition of 'residency' might be a tougher nut to crack. It seems to my layman's eye that the first step probably should be to clarify why residency is important in the first place. What do students typically do when they are physically present?

    Once that's clarified, then the question to ask is what kind of alternative arrangements would allow students to accomplish the same things in different ways. An example might be a remote-site program. Students would still be physically present, in "residency" except at a hospital or something, instead of on a university campus. They would still be doing whatever it is that on-campus students do, except they would be doing it at that remote location. Obviously that suggestion would generate issues about how remote-site students are supervised, who is teaching them, and so on.

    I'm less sanguine about trying to stretch the 'residency' requirement to include online or other entirely DL media. It would probably be better to simply eliminate the residency requirement entirely, rather than redefining it to the point that the word 'residency' becomes essentially meaningless.

    I can still imagine monkeying with the details of the requirement. If on-campus students aren't spending all of their time doing things that can only be done while they are physically present, if they are just sitting in classrooms listening to lectures most of the time, then I can imagine moving those lectures online without losing anything important. That idea might translate into an argument for hybrid online/short-residency programs, assuming that all the hands-on practical experiences that on-campus students receive can be concentrated into shorter more intensive periods.

    Of course that would really be an argument for shortening the one-year residency requirement down to its supposed essence. Is the APA really contemplating anything that radical? And again, making an argument for shortening the residency requirement down to its distilled essence would demand a detailed syllabus of what on-campus students are actually doing while in residence. So that seems to be the logical place to start.
     

Share This Page