When Don Rosenblitt became Chair of the Board of Professional Standards in 1997, he created a task force to study psychoanalytic education. He named his brainchild Project 2000, to emphasize a vision for the future (how quickly the future arrives!). Don's vision of Project 2000 was a task force that would identify contemporary issues in psychoanalytic education, explore ways to improve upon our current educational methods, and make the methods for enhancing analytic education accessible to our institutes.
A team of both child and adult analysts and candidates from around the country was assembled, representing entry-level through senior-level psychoanalysts. The idea was to build a team that could work from the top down and from the bottom up, from all compass points, and that would include child, adolescent, and adult analytic training. Candidate input would be valued as much as input from senior analysts. Toward this end, Rosenblitt and Larry Chalfin (Chair of Project 2000) assembled a group that included Steve Ablon, Adrienne Applegarth, Nancy Brehm, Fred Busch, David Carlson, Lawrence Friedman, Cornelis Heijn, Lee Jaffe, and David Orbison.
You might ask why we need such a task force. Can't our institutes conduct educational programs without the American's help? I think many of us would agree that the answer is yes, they can. For the most part, our institutes do an admirable job of educating analysts. With this in mind, Project 2000 was created to underline what we do successfully as well as to help institutes enhance their educational programs. It was created to be a national effort that would systematically promote the cross fertilization, between institutes, of effective methods for training analysts.
At the outset, our Project 2000 team meetings led to agreement that the tripartite model for analytic education was indeed the foundation of our training programs. We decided to begin by studying the didactic part of analytic training, with the understanding that supervision and the personal analysis are no less essential, and we would take them up later. To date, we have pursued several methods for gathering information about the didactic training.
We started with discussions amongst ourselves about the analytic curriculum, various ways of teaching, the essentials of a good classroom program, the role of theory, etc. At times, we asked analysts who are noted for their teaching to come and discuss their methods. Next, we explored the status of psychoanalytic education at all our institutes through a survey of current educational practices, policies, and candidate demographics. We also surveyed a large group of candidates from across the country to find out more about their educational experiences. Survey information from international candidates — for comparison — is forthcoming.
A preliminary examination of the surveys and our discussions thus far suggests that there is much we do well in our training programs, while at the same time there are areas where we can improve. For example, candidates claim that their best and worst educational experiences happen in the didactic part of their training, not in supervision or the personal analysis. Repeatedly, candidates note that the interpersonal atmosphere at their institutes significantly affects the training experience, in both a positive and a negative way. From the institute surveys it is clear that there is great diversity among various institutes' didactic programs. For example, some institutes build their didactic program historically around Freud's writings, whereas others give Freud a nod of recognition and move on to more contemporary contributions.
These are just a few examples of our findings, and much more will be forthcoming. As you consider this information, however, please keep in mind that the purpose of Project 2000 is not to argue who is doing it correctly, but to exploit our diversity in an effort to learn how we can improve the training experience. In other words, we want to discover and communicate the hazards and opportunities offered by various educational approaches.
To facilitate the discovery process, at the December meetings last year several members of Project 2000 met with the Affiliate Council to discuss educational issues, taking advantage of the nationwide representation of candidates at this one meeting. A number of important ideas and concerns were raised. For example, candidates felt that many analysts are challenged because they are not taught to be educators; they wondered how our institutes could teach the art of teaching. They expressed interest in a course where training analysts would present case material to other training analysts for discussion. There also was interest in creating a nationwide core curriculum, taking the best from all our institutes.
Following the Affiliate Council meeting, we went to lunch and continued the discussions in small groups. In my lunch group, several candidates felt some of their teachers were very naïve concerning racial differences, and they spoke of the need for more in-house institute education on racial diversity. Candidates also brought up their experiences of the group process in classes; there was general consensus that teachers would benefit from more instruction on how to facilitate a productive class atmosphere. Such instruction could help analytic educators to handle the candidate who dominates the class discussion, or know what to do with the candidate who relies on more active peers to avoid participating in the class.
The Project 2000 team is also interested in exploring cutting-edge educational methodologies. Two such innovative approaches to teaching are problem-based learning and project-based learning. Both of these exciting teaching methods radically change the traditional roles of the teacher and the learner. In problem-based learning, the teacher becomes more of a facilitator, a coach, a resource for learning, one who models complex thinking processes rather than being a source of all knowledge. The learner become more of an active thinker and producer of knowledge than a consumer of facts.
There are indeed new and exciting ways to teach, but as the Project 2000 team gathers information about such modern teaching methods, the challenge will be how to disseminate the information. One such effort is already in place. At the upcoming May APsaA meetings in Chicago, we will begin a regular series of
Lee Jaffe is a member of the Project 2000 team, chair of the APsaA's Council Membership Committee, and president-elect of the International Psychoanalytic Studies Organization.
discussion groups called “Innovations in Psychoanalytic Teaching” (May 11 at 2:00 p.m.). This first meeting will be a roundtable discussion of criticisms and recommendations by candidates in regard to their didactic training. The members of Project 2000 will discuss the principles involved in their teaching approaches, offering examples from their current experience. For future workshops, we will try to bring in professional educators. Since today's candidate is tomorrow's teacher, and many candidates already teach, we encourage candidates to participate in these discussion groups.
Another project under consideration is a series of planned videotapes that would be made available to institutes for inclusion in their didactic educational program. One idea is to videotape noteworthy psychoanalytic educators teaching in their area of expertise; another is to create videotapes that demonstrate different teaching styles or different models of supervision. Another possibility would be to interview authors of analytic writings that are frequently included in the curriculum. Candidates would have a chance to “meet” (on video) some of the authors they read, making the readings more connected to the analysts who write them.
Clearly Project 2000 is a work in progress, and there is much to be done. At this point, we are preparing to disseminate our findings on the didactic part of psychoanalytic training. When we started, it was with the idea of finishing in three years; hence the name Project 2000. Since then, it has become apparent that our mission can never really be complete, in line with Freud's reference to education as one of the “other impossible professions.” Fortunately, Ralph Engle, the incoming chair of the Board on Professional Standards, has indicated a commitment to continuing the work of the Project 2000.
We welcome and need your reactions and ideas about psychoanalytic education. Please feel free to contact a member of the Project 2000 team. The quality of analytic education will shape each candidate's professional future and the future of our profession.