Talk:Training the Trainers/Accreditation

Improving the accreditation process

There has been a delay in issuing accreditations from the June event, as sometimes happens with new schemes. Therefore I would like to see some input on ways to make that process much more responsive, and I'll set out some possibilities below:

Option 1

The accreditations are approved by the Lead Trainers (at present Martin, Fae, Doug) as we are doing now.

Option 2

The accreditations are approved by the Trustee with responsibility for the area (at present Doug).

Option 3

The accreditations are approved by the Education Committee (at present 7 members).

Option 4

The accreditations are approved by the Board (at present 6 members).

Option 5

The accreditations are approved by a designated member of staff.

The most responsive routes are for me to do it as in Option 2, or a single member of staff as in Option 5. I'm attracted to the openness of Option 3, but worried that getting a rapid decision from 7 people may introduce delays.

Comments are very welcome on this and any other related issues. --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I think there's a need to keep this simple. I'm perfectly happy with option 1, although 2 is equally good. Option 3 is open but would lack a certain responsiveness. I also don't see a scenario where there would need to be a vote on an accreditation (although I may be wrong). I think getting the board to collectively approve would be cumbersome and add to already significant commitments of the trustees so I would be against that option. Option 5, I'd be happy to be that member of staff given my involvement in the committee. I think the important point is any feedback we get from the training sessions. How do we currently assess performance of those people being trained? Do Midas put together a "class report" (for want of a better phrase)? If we have assurances that the performance of those being trained was sufficiently good for them to be accredited, I think options 2 and 5 would be the best as it's a simple administrative matter. If not, then Option 1 would be best. Hope this is useful! --Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Option 1 seems fine to me. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• Option 3 for me. In detail, I think the scheme could be discussed some. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• I am unsure of the rationale that option 1 might not be working. As one of the 3 lead trainers, I have yet to be asked to get involved in helping with a backlog of accreditations, so I was unaware of there being a bottleneck, or a lack of our availability. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• Option 1 is good for now; option 3 would be better in the long run, providing the committee's responsive enough. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• Note that I'm a lead trainer, so interpret that as a COI if you want. It has to be a consensus decision, so I'd want more than one person involved, excluding options 2 and 5. This is above all a decision involving social skills. The people who have been vetted as having the right skills are the lead trainers: that's what a lead trainer is. You can do valued work on the education committee by having relevant expertise, contacts and/or enthusiasm, but not necessarily the social perception to identify someone's training strengths & weaknesses, so neither the education committee nor the board are the right bodies to make that decision, excluding options 3 and 4. It's an operational rather than strategic matter, so again it's not for the board, though I would expect the process to be one that the board has confidence in. So I'm wholeheartedly for option 1 in the long term. At present, trainers are being accredited by external consultants: this is a necessary step to bootstrap the programme. So there is no "backlog of accreditations" for the current lead trainers to handle- not sure what you're arguing against, Fae. Stevie, I interpret the question more about the actual assessment of the trainers rather than publicly recording it, which, as you say, is an administrative matter. I would hope a lead trainer would publicly record the decision in a table on a wiki, but this is something that the staff would monitor. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't believe I was arguing, I'd rather not be misinterpreted so I'll walk away from this discussion as there are plenty of voices here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification Martin, really helpful. I'm happy to go with option 1 in that case.--Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's any risk of misrepresentation. Fae's own words are visible for all to see above: I don't understand the point of comment, and it's only reasonable for me to admit I don't understand it and seek clarification. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Option 1 seems fine by me. As I understand it, Midas produce recommendations which are then forwarded to the lead trainers to ratify. Also, having got accreditation, my understanding is that the lead trainers will then be organising the accredited trainers in some sort of effective way so that we all know what each other are working on?Leutha (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That's right. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)