21st April 2009, 01:32 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by bob
Oldgirl, I agree that one of the benefits of having IFA members doing a job is that they are bound by a set of rules and if they are breaking the rules, they should get taken up on that. I certainly would find it rather embarrassing and career affecting to be slung out of the IFA.
Re-validation or some kind of ongoing assessment is surely essential? and would come under CPD? I agree there are issues with people moving sideways or out of pure heritage jobs, but that could be addressed somehow? I'm sure you could work out a wording...
I never realised people used to be able to self-validate!!!!
Tying in to the NVQ is a good idea as it presumably makes things more measurable.
Self-validation - I know, it's scary isn't it! When 'Areas of competence' were 1st set up, that was self-validated too (Obviously, that no longer exists)! Both only happened for a few years though. Peer-reviewed validation was brought in fairly quickly and actually, quite a few of the originally self-valdated members have since been through the validation procedure.
One of the biggest problems for any peer-reviewed system is making sure that the systems and criteria are robust whilst at the same time not discriminating against people who have a slightly more unusual career. Particularly as, to be frank (sorry frank...), I think that the more people we get signed up to the code of conduct and the standards and guidance the better!
So, getting back to the overall topic (cos I get off the point sometimes... you all may have noticed....), I can understand why this curator would want to have this in the brief, but I'm not sure it's legal. I'm pretty sure it's OK to have it as a preferred option in a selection criteria though!