There is no doubt that our Association faces many challenges. Among them is the loss of potential candidates to institutes not approved by our Association. There are many reasons for this. Some potential candidates are in analyses with individuals who are either unable or unwilling to follow current procedures to become a training analyst (TA) in one of our approved institutes. Our certification requirement may deter some, and other factors, including local politics, may deter others.
Whatever the motives, what can the Association do as a remedy? Abandoning the certification requirement, as called for in a recently proposed bylaw amendment, is a singularly misguided solution. A national system of education requires meaningful national standards; otherwise it is not a national system. In our national educational system, we require our candidates to have an analysis as a core component of their educational experience. As long as an analysis is required for clinical psychoanalytic education, we have an obligation to perform due diligence in screening those who treat candidates in our programs. Certification screens for competence in regard to basic clinical skills. Those who treat candidates in our programs should meet our national standard of competence. Can anything else be done?
Three other ideas have emerged in discussions about this problem. First, it has been suggested that we revise our TA system, and make it a national system. Rather than have our approved institutes designate an analyst a TA, that designation would become a national credential, good at any approved institute. This would lessen the effect of local politics. Our three approved institutes in New York have adopted a modified version of this system, and it seems to be working.
Second, it has been suggested that we waive the certification requirement for TA status in certain circumstances. How our obligation of due diligence would or could be met with such a waiver would need careful thought and deliberation.
Third, it has been suggested that we adopt a “personal analyst option” for institutes willing to use it. This would require a waiver of the TA requirement for institutes willing to accept a candidate in an analysis with someone who is not a TA. Performing due diligence would be more complicated with this option. Some argue that we should not even try; these candidates will know whether their analysis was a good one or not, and, if not, they can seek another analysis. That abandons our responsibility. Others argue that this option would end the TA system. Alternatively, it might strengthen the TA system by having more graduate analysts develop interest in achieving TA status. For the personal analyst option to work, the analyst would have to be certified, and the institute would need to meaningfully assess the progress of the analysis as the institute assessed the suitability of the potential candidate. The progress of the analysis would be part of the suitability determination of the applicant. No report from the treating analyst should be sought. Our French colleagues use such a system, and it might help to learn more about their procedures, criteria, and their experience.
A national system of education requires meaningful national standards; otherwise it is not a national system. In our national educational system, we require our candidates to have an analysis as a core component of their educational experience. As long as an analysis is required for clinical psychoanalytic education, we have an obligation to perform due diligence in screening those who treat candidates in our programs.
As a result of the meetings in January 2005, there are two new initiatives within BOPS. First, Project 2000 will be reconstituted as the Project for Innovation in Psychoanalytic Education (PIPE) with Michael Singer as chair. Its mission is to think deeply about educational problems and recommend innovative changes that improve our educational system. PIPE will recommend actions, such as needed bylaw changes and revisions to our Principles and Standards for Psychoanalytic Education. PIPE will consider the options for changing our TA system outlined above.
Second, based on a suggestion of Robert Michels, the incoming chair of the Committee on Psychoanalytic Education (COPE), Myrna Weiss, chair of the Committee on Institutes (COI), has asked that the usual semi-annual meeting of Institute Directors and Education Committee Chairs become a Congress of Institute Leaders during the reorganization. Each approved institute has been asked to send two representatives to this congress. The specific agenda will address this fundamental question: How do institutes want to be regulated in the future? These meetings should facilitate the reorganization process, especially in regard to the future of BOPS functions.
Eric J. Nuetzel, M.D., is chair of the Board on Professional Standards.
Recently, I discussed the division that exists in our Association over the link between certification and training analyst (TA) status and concluded that a mechanism for change is in place through the reorganization process. I did not anticipate that over 50 of our members were unwilling to wait for the reorganization process to effect fundamental changes in our Association and would introduce a proposed bylaw. Among other things, the proposed bylaw would remove the certification requirement for TA status from our bylaws and would forbid BOPS from adopting such a standard on its own. [See “The Time for Local Option is Now, page 6.]
If passed, the proposed bylaw would undercut the possibility of compromise in the reorganization process. It would abandon the principle that our educational component is responsible for national educational standards. It would compromise the standard setting function of BOPS and would thereby diminish our ability to retain our public interest functions as we reorganize. The proposed bylaw violates the spirit of the mutually consultative relationship between BOPS and the Executive Council established by the Education and Membership Agreement. It ignores the reality of our improved certification procedure and the serious deliberations within BOPS regarding changes to our TA system. We should not allow our educational system to be undermined in the reorganization process.
So, what next? Even if BOPS and the Executive Council vote against the proposed bylaw, it must go to the membership for a vote. Vote against it. The future of our Association depends on you.