Innovations in Education

We would like to use the Third Congress of Institutes to organize and highlight some important innovations in psychoanalytic education that BOPS is considering. The congress, held January 15, 2008, during the winter meetings in New York, was chaired by Betsey Brett and Dan Jacobs, current chairs of the Committee on Institutes (COI).

After outlining the history of previous congresses, Brett focused specifically on reports from the Task Force on Externalization, the Project for Innovation in Psychoanalytic Education (PIPE), and the Certification Examination Committee (CEC).

Paul Mosher, co-chair of the Task Force on Externalization with Don Rosenblitt, presented their preliminary report. Up to this point, they have focused on the feasibility of different models for the externalization of some or all of BOPS's functions. Two models are being given the most serious consideration. One is what was formerly called the Mosher-Narcisi proposal and is now called the External Corporation model (EC). The other model, which has been proposed by Bob Michels, is now called the Institute Initiated model (II).

Delegates and fellows seemed open to learning about the feasibility of the models and giving serious consideration to the deliberation of the task force.

Under the EC model, which presumably would require bylaw changes, a separate corporation would be set up to perform the educational standard setting, accrediting, and certifying functions now contained within BOPS. Like-minded institutes would join together in this new body, form a new board of directors, and set up standards for education, accreditation, and certification. These member institutes would agree to be governed by the rule of the majority. Institutes that did not want to join would be free to seek accreditation with other accrediting bodies such as the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) or the Accreditation Council for Psychoanalytic Education (ACPE). APsaA and the new corporation would have a contractual agreement during a 10-year transition period of decreasing financial support. At the end of the transition, the two entities would be separate and financially independent.

An ongoing collaborative relationship is envisioned between the two organizations, both during and after the transition. It is important to stress that the new standard setting and credentialing body would not have individual members but would be composed of member institutes that choose to join.

The II model might look very similar in the end but would take a different path in getting there. Under this model, a group of like-minded institutes would come together and form a new body. Others could join if they wanted to. This would not be under the auspices of APsaA, would not require a two-thirds vote of the membership or a bylaw change, and would not involve financial support from APsaA.

It is interesting to note that there was much less opposition to the idea of externalization at both the congress and at BOPS. Delegates and fellows seemed open to learning about the feasibility of the models and giving serious consideration to the deliberation of the task force. The task force plans to present its final report in June 2008.

We believe that a full consideration of externalization is critical at this juncture. Our recently elected president-elect, treasurer-elect, and two councilors-at-large all campaigned as strong supporters of “local option.” We feel strongly that local option will put an end to national standards for education and credentialing of both institutes and individuals. We further believe that under local option, we will soon become a loose confederation of institutes, training candidates with educational standards driven more by local practicalities than by a national consensus of educators and institutes.

Michael Singer then gave a report from PIPE presenting some exciting new ideas for an alternative national pathway for certification. In this proposal, any applicant who preferred or was opposed to our current certification procedure could apply to a national panel of theoretically diverse psychoanalysts. The applicant would choose two examiners from this panel. They would then engage in a primarily oral discussion of clinical material over an extended period of time. A mentor would be assigned to assist the applicant throughout this process. The traditional certification exam would also remain an option for those who prefer it. This new alternative pathway would not require a bylaw change and could be used to fulfill the certification requirement for training analyst appointment.

Paul Holinger, chair of the Certification Examination Committee, presented ways in which the committee is working to improve the present process. These include a mentoring process for applicants, the possibility of making the oral portion of the exam optional and at the discretion of the applicant, as well as the immediate resumption of the reliability studies. In addition, the chairs of the CEC and the Certification Advisory Research and Development Committee (CARD) observed several interviews at the January 2008 meeting and are considering making observers a routine part of future interviews.