ICF Lunch Learn ICF Credentialing Forum Flip Chart Notes - PDF by fkm15803

VIEWS: 64 PAGES: 8

									                                           ICF Lunch & Learn: ICF Credentialing
                                                 Forum Flip Chart Notes
The following is a compilation of comments collected during the December 2009 ICF Lunch &
Learn: ICF Credentialing Forum held at the ICF Conference.

Group 1:
Strengthen ACC: adopt “no hours until after training begins” piece
Strengthen MCC: find a way to build strength besides the hours; refresher course?; mentor groups?


Group 2:
How will ISO help address Government Regulations?
How to define entry to coaching?
Don’t throw out ACC entry. Add written exam to ACC.


Group 3:
- Visibility of ICF needs to be elevated everywhere. Easier said then done but needed.
4 Pre-Cert: 1 ACC, 2 PCC, 2 MCC
- Board members are not voted in by the membership, they are chosen by the nominating
committee…PCC
- Suggest there be a facilitator other then the President. Role Conflict.
- Must re-establish our common ground – we are all coaches who “we’ve done!! Sally Magily? MCC
- Support to have a high entry standard that will honor the coaching profession. ACC
- Strongly support the 3 current credentials with enhancements to PCC. ISO aligned process underlying.
- A fundamental dynamic ??...the elected board of a professional association has become – in effect a
separate board of certification – in medicine – there has been a sharp conflict between the professional
associations and the “maintenance of certification” group.
Happy to share more, I did a major conflict intervention between two such groups.
Sam Magill MCC sam@sammagill.com


Group 4:
   1) Keep three levels of certification
   2) Branded with terms for AC, PCC, MCC
   3) Keep the titles when you add standards to each
   4) ISO Standardization is great if it is fair and improves coaches in reality as well and public image
   5) Any additional for ISO STDs ICF should provide via online training at no cost to/for those with
       existing credentials.
   6) Relates to #5…this means allowing multiple opportunities to retake.
   7) Any additional mentoring/assessing be applied to only new applicants. Existing credential
       holders should be grandfathered in.
   8) Prior experience: when validated as “truly coaching” should be recognized.
   9) What is so how?? Why/how would someone go forward?


Group 5:
   1) Will all three credentials be retained? In conflict with pros and cons question (#3)
   2) What new level is ISO compliant/aligned
   3) What is the actual process? How will I be elevated? Will subjectivity be truly eliminated?
   4) As an MCC, my former contributions and expectations may not be acknowledged.
   5) If MCC achievement is “the level” would we be having this conversation?
   6) Why has ISO alignment/credentialing been selected? Have we considered aligning with other
       credentialing bodies?
    7) Has international representation of the Board “tipped” the preference to align with ISO but US
       coaches not fully familiar with ISO?
    8) Why were we (members) only advised ISO was selected without asking for input and or
       recommendations to align and or investigate other credentialing options.

Group 6:
   1) ACC should go back to being temporary – non renewable.
   2) Internal coaches should be able to document hours for PCC/MCC…there were no internal
       coaches when we developed the credential
   3) The "elephant in the room” is the disconnect between ICF and the membership – decision making
       needs to change to an open source model. INCLUDE US! BE TRANSPARENT.
   4) Focus energy/$ on developing a streamlined credential process and spend the rest on marketing
       them.
   5) Communicate better – use the “I” tools at our disposal.

Group 7:

Questions, Issues and concerns
   1) What information will be shared with ICF members before and after the board meeting?
   2) If one credential only is the decision, will PCC and MCC Credentialed coaches be grandfathered
       into the new cred.? If not what are the requirements for the new designation?
   3) What will the new cred. Be named? Note: we do not like the word/descriptor Foundation.
   4) Will the board contact and communicate with current assessors to gain valuable feedback an
       insight regarding what they know about the current cred. process? Tons of knowledge and
       experience within this group of professionals.
   5) If one cred. Is chosen, could there be additional training/experience to receive specialization
       designation? Example: one cert. with specialization in: Business/Organization or Personal/Life or
       Health/Wellness or Ministry or Career/Life Transition?


Group 8:
How do we align our 3+ credentials with the ISO Guidelines? Creating a distinction between process and
content; how do we standardize something that “cannot” be standardized?


Group 9:
ICF Branding outside the US -> more confusion
ACC entry level could be ISO Aligned with same parameters existing today?


Group 10:
What about the credentials we already have? What’s the impact of colleges and degree programs on the
ISO? Will the ISO credential last?


Group 11:
   1) encompass current and past work
   2) Strengthen profession – definition, cred.
   3) Systems that uphold standards we want the system to market to understand/ what market wants
   4) Enhance what we have already
          a. Higher description for ACC, PCC, MCC
          b. Consecutive content for training
          c. Assessor competencies
   5) Service requirement for MCC’s and PCC’s and ACC’s as additional information
   6) Task force to determine body of knowledge for PCC and MCC.
   7) Based on way ACC designed, not acceptable
    8) What if coaching was a “field” and not a profession? If so, why not have a 21st century thinking
       applied to the idea that we are a “field Association” instead of a professional one? What if there
       were both?
    9) What if we are asking the wrong question? What if credentialing is not the question? We should
       be asking to move coaching forward to what would give us cred in the WORLD?

Group 12:
In what way can ACC be strengthened? Current qualifications:
60 trng hours
100 coaching hours
10 hrs mentoring
Oral coaching exam
Recommendation from 2 PCCs
We don’t know what about these qualifications do not meet ISO standards and we like having an entry
level certification.


Group 13:
Pros:
Simplicity; easier for marketplace to understand; better for business client – corporations understand ISO
standards – not ICF
Questions: Does ISO demand 1 cred. For compliance?

Cons:
No path for growth would be recognized; How to test potential oral exams consistently
Suggestions:
See what coach gets from MCC and see if there is another way to distinguish experience and hours
See how to give credit for prior life experience and ability.


Group 14:
Remind members of the knowledge based approach to making decisions
Whatever happens have very clear communication, not just on what it is, but also what has come before,
# of participants, what evolved, where came from.

How simplify process for all? All include: Shingle, well educated, Students, Portfolio, Accepted, ACC,
PCC, MCC. Stakeholders: schools/coaches/clients – how make sure it helps clients find good coaches
and stay in business. Make $ off of members for accreditation. Take approach (in communication). What
is the problem trying to solve? Credibility, timing of process, maintain/ keep competencies up. Help our
present credentialed coaches take a 3rd person perspective of imagine 20 years from now..what want?
Need? We need ACC or something for students who finished strict practicum and hours requirements.
Grandfather clause? For existing ACC/PCC/MCC. Questions: What happens to “portfolio” or non-
accredited training? Can a PhD with experience apply directly? Tied to core competency match.
Pipeline for application and accreditation timeline shortened?


Group 15:
Specific reactions of the proposed elements for next generation PCC level credentials
Questions:
What happens to existing credential levels?
Opinion about increase of mentor hours:
  Are there enough mentors?
  Who is qualified to be a mentor?
  How will this reduce bottleneck for review of applications?
How are we going to ensure compliance to ISO Standards?
Group 16:
How do you see us moving forward from here?
    - Old way isn’t supporting, too slow. Streamlining is ok.
    - MCC has helped some of us not have to “get” a degree (MA in coaching). How can we keep the past
    and honor future?
Future require us to go deeper in or knowledge specialization – may have certification
Internal Coach-> ACC works to train coaches from existing field. Example: adjuster who is good gets
ACC but will not have coaching practice. HR – requires certification (SPHR), some way to ENTER the
field. What about CCEU’s? Our current competencies, while not perfect, but they WORK. Build on what
we HAVE, how to raise the standards – may be ISO but the decision making is broken.


Group 17:
Pros:
- Larger recognized to external world (because ISO is more recognized)
- ACC is beginner level…having one level for all would raise the bar (not a consensus)
- Eliminate inequality and “ego issues”
- Strengthen ICF’s reputation as being compared thru ISO Standards.

Cons:
   • Without the different levels there isn’t the higher quality of coaching through continued
      development and hours
   • ACC has provided more interest in credentialing, raising revenue for ICF.
   • For part time coaches or those who coach as part of another role, it would take years to achieve
      any credential.
   • Can be seen as lowering standards to do away with MCC
   • With current 3 tier system, it allows someone to build over time rewards as steps of progress.
   • MCCs could splinter off to other coaching orgs as a result
   • “Vanilla” everyone is the same and there is nothing special.
   • Can lose ACCs and move to the 1 level because it is so high to attain.


Group 18:
Pros:
Easier to administer: Precedent in Prof. success: more easily recognized by consumer
Cons:
Doesn’t recognize levels of expertise; Impact on existing cred. Holders; Stops growth – beyond CCE
renewal; Barrier to entry into prof.

    a.   Stand for quality: need minimum standards for membership
    b.   Related, different types of members (coaches, resources)
    c.   How do we arrive at the final choice? Vote, look at and prioritize?
    d.   BRAND COACHING; make more tangible-. Tied to Brand discussions
         Pros and Cons of Foundation Cred:
         a. Recognition for all 3 levels of cred; respect; distinction; progression
         b. What is new paradigm beyond ISO?


Group 19:
What if we created how to establish credibility?
What are cons of ISO?
ACC move back to 250 hours? To many assessments too soon.
Perhaps measuring mastery is not possible?
What about developing a “fellow” designation recognizing senior member accomplishments?
Group 20:
- More clarity on proposed changes for each credential. Motivation behind having one cred?
- Increase assessor interrator(?) reliability
- Provide more resource and clarity in cert. requirements.
- Research base needs to be made public
- What are the pros and cons of’ the two cred. system?
- More TRANSPARENCY


Group 21:
ACC Strengthened?
   • Use ACC As recognition as entry level into the prof. – welcome mat
   • Methodology to grow the ICF Membership
   • INCLUSIVE
   • Awareness of competition around the world
   • Competencies more clarity less complexity
   • Less of a gap between ACC and Membership.


Group 22:
   • Lessen the amount of time it takes to accredit individuals and programs
   • What would be needed to level the playing field for MCCs who were grandfathered in?
   • How will the ACC requirements change?
   • ISO is not the right approach to coach credentialing.


Group 23:
Single cred
Pros:
Greater clarity for consumer/clients
Help professionalize coaching

Cons:
Duration to complete requirements
Suggestion:
Allow cred. For pro bono 720
5 of total. Look at CPA, Atty, CFA structures=recognized professional cred.


Group 24:
   • ACC is geared to fit in profession.
   • We lack ??? who are setting up the standards/pushing for written exam
   • Increase the ACC:
   • ICF requests
   • Training schools filing application as a degree, experience, ECT.
   • Not renewable


Group 25:
4000 ACC (100)
2000 PCC (750)->500 training 60 hours
700 MCC (2500)
Especially imp. Internal coaches and new coaches
   1. World
   2. Profession of coaching
    3. Colleagues/clients
    4. Myself, my practice


Group 26:
 • More hours (from 100 now to 250 hrs- starting after 60 hrs of training)
 • Schools should meet min. standards, using certified instructor
    - Consistency worldwide w/ output (core comp)
    - strengthen ACTP review to ensure consistency in core comp.
 • Assessments should be more consistent
 • Leave it alone! Don’t make it harder!


Group 27:
What if we gave the whole matter of credentialing to the school?


Group 28:
We love coaching, let us VOTE on key issues that affect us as: Members; Schools; citizens of world wide
coaching
Take out the chance to “be a member” without any credentialing. To distinguish the properly educated
coaches from “2 day” so called coaches. This is confusing for the consumer!


Group 29:
What is the distinction between 3 levels? Big concern is how clients see us as a profession as a brand.
Internal labels not so important.
Can we leave egos out and focus on common goals? Branding first.


Group 30:
Certification 2.0
Recommend:
The 100 hours required for ACC Cert. come AFTER the cred. From the educational institution (example:
CTI’s CPCC designation)
Additional mentor coaching hours.


Group 31:
Continue providing clarity on the proposal
Pro – Provide regulation Board that might be recognized State by State. (National and International)


Group 32:
What is the problem to be solved?
Clarity and consistency
Valid, obj. measures o dist.
Recognition of Experience prior to training.


Group 33:
   • What is the problem we are trying to solve?
       EMCC: how does the proposed move to ISO fit with the movement in Europe (EMCC) towards
       the differentiated standards? The reverse.
   • What is the evidence that employers/organizations value and consider ISO standards across all
       sectors and all countries in the world?
    •   How will ISO affect the diversity of applications succeeding in gaining an ICF Cred? Example:
        legislation and examining practices, diverse in the field of psychology)
    •   Change for the sake of what? What is the evident call for change, by whom and where?
    •   When we qualify and gain certifications/degrees we hold them in perpetuity – they do not get re-
        designated and people around the world don’t comprehend all the different examinations and
        trust that the cred. Body (ICF) strengthening the brand to align high standards and consistency
        with this organization.
    •   Can we keep both paths, so those that want an ISO exam can??


Group 34:
2 levels are possible: One regular level and one Senior level. Oral exam for both and an ISO aligned
written exam for both
Level with really strong training.


Group 35:
#2 covers all others
Credibility of the Internal Certification for members
Create system – International registry? Identity Cards?
Main thoughts:
    1. Giving credit/validation of previous degrees and prof. training
    2. Need for separate credentialing body such as SHRM/HRCI or counselors and NBCC. Consider
         process of the Center for Credentialing and Education (www.cce-global.org)


Group 36:
Strengthening ACC level
Incl. ICF membership fee as a norm in the coaching accreditation schools
ICF members presenting to coaching schools
? hours to be increased (coach training) to 125 hours
Recognize past experiences
Further supporting the ACC Members thru monitoring
Coaching hours count after accreditation


Group 37:
ACC:
A start!! Important
Important in organization in Europe and India (emerging countries)
Will it be renewable? Renew to show progress; more coaching hours
Gain integrity
3 stakeholders: schools, students, clients

PCC:
Recognized in marketplace

A new cred. For non practicing individuals: administrators and researchers


Group 38:
If we are confused, and we are, our clients will be too
This is not an optimum time to change – state of economy (a lot of ppl without a job)
What is reason/rational to go to ISO?
Major concern about who is grandfathered (what if I am currently in a training program?)
Need instructions on how to be certified
What are the criteria to be recertified?
The whole process hasn’t been explained enough

Group 39:
Pros:
Would be simpler, more understandable
Minimum eligibility requirement

Cons:
No credential at the beginning while continuing forward
Will confuse the community (competency would not show until the end)
Doesn’t show you are continuing to learn or even in the process)
Wouldn’t allow scaffold to earn a living along the way
Wouldn’t be easier to manage
Needs to have the consistency, needs regulation, OR if ICF does correctly, Gov. wont need to step in.


Group 40:
Number and type of credentials:
We distinguished process for training from assessing competencies. Our suggestions are for both
process and practice.
    1. Process: ISO compliant accreditation process for coach training
    2. Practice: registration for grads of an ICF accredited coach trng program has value for recognition
        of learning outcomes
    3. The existing creds them become evidence of practice , competency, longevity, experience and
        proficiency.
    4. For clarification/elaboration contact carollyne.conlinn@essentialimpact/com


Group 41:
Pros:
Reasons okay for PCC and MCC level if reliable and specific. People should be able to keep old
credential. Credential needs to be robust enough so consumer knows what they are buying. May solve
some problems with inconsistent credentialing process now????

Cons:
Need new career path within? People will need to be allowed to finish path they began under those rules.

								
To top