This past year, the state changed the requirements for licensure by mandating a minimum of 12 continuing education credits in Health, Safety and Welfare only. Credits outside of this narrowly approved area are no longer permitted. The LLR made this change without soliciting input from the registered architects in the state. When I asked why we were not notified by mail, I was told that the governor had put a limit on mailings. This issue brought a serious deficiency to light: Communication with the LLR is very limited and input is practically nonexistent. This needs to be changed.
When I asked the LLR how we were supposed to know when the law was changed, I was told that it is the architect’s responsibility to check the LLR website and find out. Following this exchange, I went to the website and found that most of the information on it was out of date and wrong. The continuing education section was unchanged and continued to note 8 hours of HSW and 4 hours of other practice areas. Since I had already obtained credits in these “other areas,” I printed the entire website in case they felt like updating it after my call. They updated it in November, five months after the law was changed and added a newsletter that announced the new law. Because the Board did not have all of the registered architects email address, they asked everyone to pass it along to other architects. There’s no way to know if all architects received the electronic notification. I’m not sure if the LLR expects the changes to be effective for this year considering this poor notification process. In all fairness, the 12 credits for HSW should only be effective after June of 2009.
In a related issue, I mailed a question and asked for the LLR Board response for an issue in August. The information was not passed on. When I called about it, Jan Simpson invited me to speak to the Board in November. When I got there, other information I had prepared and sent electronically to them was also inexplicably missing and I had to supply copies to the Board. Without adequate time for the board to review the material, the meeting was not as productive as I had hoped.
I brought the Board an example of the Virginia Boards website public forum. In Virginia, changes to the law are open for discussion online. Architects and Engineers can write comments concerning the law changes and others can read them and respond as well. Once the comment time is closed, the Board reviews and answers each person in a format that is available to the public. The example I brought contained around seven hundred responses, the overwhelming majority speaking out against mandatory continuing education for licensure. Unfortunately, Virginia also has bad timing. They voted to require mandatory continuing education first and then gave it to their professional board to work out the requirements, all before the comment period was started.
As Jan Simpson gleefully said, the Virginia architects and engineers were dragged into mandatory continuing education “kicking and screaming.” This remark disparages the relevant comments offered by practicing architects who object to the false promises of MCE. Most people pay a premium for an architect’s advice. Seven hundred architects recommended against MCE and were told to take a hike. If there are any people qualified to determine what laws will protect the people and the profession, it is the licensed, practicing architects. Before any changes to the law are considered, we must offer architects a chance to voice their opinion and carefully listen to what they say.
I also brought the Board a copy of my article, The Continuing Education Myth, which explains why mandatory continuing education cannot be used as a standard for licensure. It discriminates against more experienced professionals by establishing minimum standards that are different for each architect. Enforcement of mandatory continuing education requirements may include loss of license, public reprimand and fines. Revoking a license for failure to complete MCE implies incompetency. Because this implication cannot be proven, the enforcement results in libel. MCE as currently written is unfair and illegal.
The Board, defending MCE, responded that “everyone was doing it.” This child’s excuse for an action was disheartening. They never really addressed the defamation issue or the charge of discrimination. The most egregious reply was from the attorney on the board who said that the only people not doing their MCE were “either senile or alcoholics.” Many thanks to him for proving my defamation point. I said that the MCE requirements were relatively new and that many great architects had never heard of MCE. I noted that Frank Lloyd Wright didn’t take Mandatory Continuing Education courses. Jan Simpson said that “Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings leak.” At least the architects on the Board didn’t talk like that.
Years ago, Jan Simpson told me that the LLR Board was definitely not “pro-architect.” For some reason, the Board seems to think that its role is to rule and punish instead of listen and administrate. I think differently. Architects are some of the most moral, concerned citizens we have. I believe that an architect’s license should be issued once, for life. I think the license can only be revoked for cause, not speculation. And I think the role of the LLR should be to support architects and protect their roles in the building process.
It is clear that the architects of this state should be much more involved with the LLR actions. The AIA has the opportunity to make this happen. We should implement an online comment page, either on an AIA website or the LLR’s. We should encourage greater dialogue between the LLR and the architects. Without input from the state’s architects, South Carolina regulatory decisions are made in a vacuum. Time to change the rule for these Board Games.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Bird Has Left The Nest
Simple Concept: Establish a licensing board that will help regulate licensed architects in our state. The architects must meet minimum standards of education, practical experience and tested ability. Then let them fly.
Anything after that is professional development. The state is unqualified to determine or measure professional development.
No bird tracks down their young and teaches them to fly over and over again. Let them fly. Let them fly!
Anything after that is professional development. The state is unqualified to determine or measure professional development.
No bird tracks down their young and teaches them to fly over and over again. Let them fly. Let them fly!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Continuing Uneducation
"Only the senile and alcoholics" refuse to complete continuing education requirements, said the member of the state licensing board. Obviously my presentation of The Continuing Education Myth to the South Carolina LLR Board of Architectural Examiners was poorly received, to say the least. In spite of written requests, they still refuse to publish the name or content of the article in the meeting minutes.
My quest to have professional practice count toward learning credits has been amazingly difficult. This year, the President of the Virginia Society of Architects told me that he and members of Virginia AIA did not agree with my "notion" of learning on the job. They fully endorsed mandatory continuing education courses. It turns out that their Government Affairs director and chief proponent for the new MCE law is on the AIA staff and may not practice architecture at all. While most of us log thousands of hours designing, reviewing, specifying, and programming, he only has to attend a few seminars to keep his license. Outrageous. Today I renewed my architect's license in Alabama. They have a proposed law change that describes continuing education as anything "outside of daily business activities." What is going on here?
I refuse to believe that the more I work, the less I know. The struggle continues.
My quest to have professional practice count toward learning credits has been amazingly difficult. This year, the President of the Virginia Society of Architects told me that he and members of Virginia AIA did not agree with my "notion" of learning on the job. They fully endorsed mandatory continuing education courses. It turns out that their Government Affairs director and chief proponent for the new MCE law is on the AIA staff and may not practice architecture at all. While most of us log thousands of hours designing, reviewing, specifying, and programming, he only has to attend a few seminars to keep his license. Outrageous. Today I renewed my architect's license in Alabama. They have a proposed law change that describes continuing education as anything "outside of daily business activities." What is going on here?
I refuse to believe that the more I work, the less I know. The struggle continues.
The Continuing Education Myth
SCArchitect recently published a list of disciplinary actions against architects who failed to meet the mandatory continuing education (MCE) requirements of South Carolina. The punishments included public reprimand, thousands of dollars in fines, as well as being issued an Order to Cease and Desist from practicing architecture until the requirements were met. And just what are these requirements that would justify revoking your license? Well, the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (LLR) is not quite sure. While they insist that you keep learning, they leave the subject matter up to each architect. Because the goal is so unclear, the list of acceptable continuing education credits changes each year. Architects generally follow the rules and accept more bureaucracy as a matter of course. However, this passive acceptance of questionable rules has begun to hurt otherwise law-abiding professionals.
Although the mandatory continuing education requirements are minimal, the punishment for non-compliance is out of proportion to its value, with disciplinary actions that should be reserved for gross negligence and crime. By allowing these laws to be put in place, we have created a myth that state-mandated continuing education improves competency and that documenting it will somehow make better architects. As it stands, our MCE system has little impact on improving our skills and cannot work as a standard for an architect's license. Life-long learning is a goal for all of us, but the LLR attempt to regulate and document it is misguided. As any architect can tell you, practical experience is the best teacher. It is impossible for an architect to be active in this profession without keeping up and learning new things. Since we all know that professional practice is the best form of continuing education, what percentage counts toward the LLR requirements? Zero. The LLR does not recognize professional practice as continuing education. Ironically, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) recognizes experience as equal to or surpassing formal education. The Broadly Experienced Architect (BEA) program allows architects to substitute experience for professional degrees. We have now created a system that allows us to skip years of college for licensure but lose the same license for missing an MCE course. It would be hard to explain to my children why, after nearly a quarter of a century of being an architect, I could lose my license because I didn’t attend a one hour seminar.
By ignoring the learning achieved through professional practice, a skewed system emerges where different architects are held to different standards for licensure. A veteran architect with twenty years of experience will have completed a minimum of 228 hours of continuing education. A newly registered architect is exempt from continuing education the first year. However, both architects will have met the state’s minimum standard for licensure. The key word in this situation is "minimum." It is impossible to have two different levels of "minimum" standards. This system discriminates against experienced practicing professionals, devalues the license, and promotes an unrealistic expectation of how architects learn and what makes them competent.
According to the South Carolina Board of Architectural Examiner’s website: “The Board's mission is to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of South Carolina by registering and regulating architects to ensure competent practitioners in the profession.” What is the connection between mandatory continuing education and competency? The implication is that the state has required MCE to ensure competent practitioners. Otherwise, why would it be the law? These questions must be asked because if incomplete MCE can be used to revoke a license, there must be a provable link between MCE and competency. Prepare to be disappointed. There is no documented proof from any licensing board that mandatory continuing education improves competency or decreases incompetency. In fact, one state that tried MCE and repealed the requirements noted no changes at all. The promise of regulated competency is false and misleads the public.
Public perception of this system is a serious matter. If an architect’s license is suspended, people assume the worst. Either the architect’s buildings fell down or some other catastrophic event has occurred that resulted in the loss of the license. When the state suspends a license based on continuing education requirements, they are implying that the architect is deficient and incompetent. Any normal accusation of incompetence typically involves a specific case and must be proved in a court of law, where the architects can defend themselves. This mythical MCE charge of incompetence cannot be proven and results in defamation of character.
And it gets worse. According to the South Carolina Code of Regulations, 11-13, B.: “Any architect or firm whose license has been revoked or suspended by the Board shall promptly notify, or cause to be notified, all clients being represented in pending matters of the revocation or suspension and their inability to act as the architect and shall advise said clients to seek the assistance of another architect of the client's own choice. The notice must be sent by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested.” This action would cause substantial damage to the business and to the architect's reputation.
The state’s list of acceptable continuing education methods has grown since the program’s inception to include service on public boards, visits to significant buildings, and other forms of learning. This natural progression of acceptable methods of learning will eventually arrive at its logical conclusion - everything you do in life contributes to learning and competence. Exactly. Continuing education cannot and should not be regulated. Licensing boards must recognize that practicing architects are professionals and are able to determine their own needs. That’s what being a professional means. Competent architects will know their limits and expand their horizons as they see fit. Incompetent architects will fail and then, and only then, should their license be revoked.
MCE will always fall short of expectations because competency is proven by performance, not speculation. Knowledge through mandatory continuing education does not necessarily translate into action. We don’t have any law about that. I fully expect that any call to repeal MCE will be met with additional rules and threats to demand retesting for competency. These ideas should always be challenged. The purpose of the Board should be to establish one minimum standard of competency for an architect's license. Beyond that point, it is up to the clients, the public, and the architects themselves to determine competency, scope of practice and level of excellence they wish to achieve. Simply put, an architectural license should be issued once, for life, and MCE repealed. This will save time, money, debate, and bring back the respect that the architect and the hard-earned license deserve.
Although the mandatory continuing education requirements are minimal, the punishment for non-compliance is out of proportion to its value, with disciplinary actions that should be reserved for gross negligence and crime. By allowing these laws to be put in place, we have created a myth that state-mandated continuing education improves competency and that documenting it will somehow make better architects. As it stands, our MCE system has little impact on improving our skills and cannot work as a standard for an architect's license. Life-long learning is a goal for all of us, but the LLR attempt to regulate and document it is misguided. As any architect can tell you, practical experience is the best teacher. It is impossible for an architect to be active in this profession without keeping up and learning new things. Since we all know that professional practice is the best form of continuing education, what percentage counts toward the LLR requirements? Zero. The LLR does not recognize professional practice as continuing education. Ironically, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) recognizes experience as equal to or surpassing formal education. The Broadly Experienced Architect (BEA) program allows architects to substitute experience for professional degrees. We have now created a system that allows us to skip years of college for licensure but lose the same license for missing an MCE course. It would be hard to explain to my children why, after nearly a quarter of a century of being an architect, I could lose my license because I didn’t attend a one hour seminar.
By ignoring the learning achieved through professional practice, a skewed system emerges where different architects are held to different standards for licensure. A veteran architect with twenty years of experience will have completed a minimum of 228 hours of continuing education. A newly registered architect is exempt from continuing education the first year. However, both architects will have met the state’s minimum standard for licensure. The key word in this situation is "minimum." It is impossible to have two different levels of "minimum" standards. This system discriminates against experienced practicing professionals, devalues the license, and promotes an unrealistic expectation of how architects learn and what makes them competent.
According to the South Carolina Board of Architectural Examiner’s website: “The Board's mission is to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of South Carolina by registering and regulating architects to ensure competent practitioners in the profession.” What is the connection between mandatory continuing education and competency? The implication is that the state has required MCE to ensure competent practitioners. Otherwise, why would it be the law? These questions must be asked because if incomplete MCE can be used to revoke a license, there must be a provable link between MCE and competency. Prepare to be disappointed. There is no documented proof from any licensing board that mandatory continuing education improves competency or decreases incompetency. In fact, one state that tried MCE and repealed the requirements noted no changes at all. The promise of regulated competency is false and misleads the public.
Public perception of this system is a serious matter. If an architect’s license is suspended, people assume the worst. Either the architect’s buildings fell down or some other catastrophic event has occurred that resulted in the loss of the license. When the state suspends a license based on continuing education requirements, they are implying that the architect is deficient and incompetent. Any normal accusation of incompetence typically involves a specific case and must be proved in a court of law, where the architects can defend themselves. This mythical MCE charge of incompetence cannot be proven and results in defamation of character.
And it gets worse. According to the South Carolina Code of Regulations, 11-13, B.: “Any architect or firm whose license has been revoked or suspended by the Board shall promptly notify, or cause to be notified, all clients being represented in pending matters of the revocation or suspension and their inability to act as the architect and shall advise said clients to seek the assistance of another architect of the client's own choice. The notice must be sent by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested.” This action would cause substantial damage to the business and to the architect's reputation.
The state’s list of acceptable continuing education methods has grown since the program’s inception to include service on public boards, visits to significant buildings, and other forms of learning. This natural progression of acceptable methods of learning will eventually arrive at its logical conclusion - everything you do in life contributes to learning and competence. Exactly. Continuing education cannot and should not be regulated. Licensing boards must recognize that practicing architects are professionals and are able to determine their own needs. That’s what being a professional means. Competent architects will know their limits and expand their horizons as they see fit. Incompetent architects will fail and then, and only then, should their license be revoked.
MCE will always fall short of expectations because competency is proven by performance, not speculation. Knowledge through mandatory continuing education does not necessarily translate into action. We don’t have any law about that. I fully expect that any call to repeal MCE will be met with additional rules and threats to demand retesting for competency. These ideas should always be challenged. The purpose of the Board should be to establish one minimum standard of competency for an architect's license. Beyond that point, it is up to the clients, the public, and the architects themselves to determine competency, scope of practice and level of excellence they wish to achieve. Simply put, an architectural license should be issued once, for life, and MCE repealed. This will save time, money, debate, and bring back the respect that the architect and the hard-earned license deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
