LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Amy West <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 19 Jun 2010 09:48:38 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (106 lines)
Lisa, I am in a similar situation.

I come from a philosophy and political science background, which means I
never took the majority of the courses required for the exam for 2012 and
going forward.  I'd have to go back to school part-time for at least 18
months to two years before I could even consider taking the exam.

I'd planned to sit for the exam in 2011; because of red tape with Pathway
Three, that's no longer an option.  (The IBCLC mentoring me is recertifying
in July; IBLCE won't allow me to log any hours prior to when she gets her
exam results in late October, which makes it impossible to get the hours
done in time. Had they allowed me to log hours beginning after the July
exam, I could have completed the hours. Of course, the hours would have only
been valid if she received a passing score, but they weren't willing to work
with me on that.)

So, whereas I'd planned to sit for the exam in 2011, my plans have now
changed to put it off indefinitely.  I don't have the time or money to put
into two more years of part-time school.  I recently took and passed the
Healthy Children CLC course and am currently completing the CAPPA CLE
course.

Please note that in NO way am I knocking the CLC or CLE trainings when I
point out that those trainings are a far cry from the amount of education
and clinical experience that comes with becoming an IBCLC.  I'm also not
saying that the education requirements shouldn't be increased; but making
the options so narrow is where the real damage comes in.

The courses have to be taken at an accredited college (and thus will be
accompanied by college tuition rates), as opposed to some of the online
IBCLC education offerings currently available.  I think AARC could have
approved courses in those subjects, which would likely have made less
expensive options available.  The education also has to be finished by
February of the year you're taking the exam (if you want the lowest exam
fee), which means that the spring semester is off-limits and the education
would stretch out that much longer.  And some of the non-college education
is really geared for in-hospital professionals (are courses in infection
control and occupational safety truly necessary for ALL IBCLCs?).  In short,
and without naming each example here, I think that some undue hardship has
come along with the new requirements.  I'm in favor of strengthening the
credential, but at the expense putting this burden on candidates without a
healthcare background?  This could have been done with more inclusive goals
in mind.

It's my opinion that this has only driven future IBCLCs to settle for
sub-standard training, because without a medical background and education,
it's now out of reach for us.  That's not good for moms or our profession.

Amy West, CLC
and future CLE, and unfortunately, now likely to never become an IBCLC.



On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Elizabeth Brooks <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Lisa -- Please please please send your question directly to IBLCE.  They
> need to know that folks who are reading their website, and considering
> taking the exam, are walking away with the impression that you have:  that
> only graduates of a medical-training program can now sit the IBLCE exam.
>
> I find your question particuarly poignant as we are reading so many
> articulate posts about the IBCLC straining and contorting to fit into the
> medical model.  I, for one, think the new IBLCE requirements are pushing
> IBCLC squarely into the medical arena, and farther still from the
> mother-to-mother roots from whence the profession was borne.  In the first
> year of the exm, 55% of the test-takers were LLLLs or other
> mother-to-mother
> counselors.  By 2000, only 5% came from such a background.  I am sure
> nothing has happened in the past decade to reverse the trend.
>
> A non-medical-school type can still become an IBCLC, under Pathway 3, but
> you will have to cobble together proof that you have taken many many
> classes
> in medical-type training, in addition to lactation-specific classes.  Then
> you have to go out an find someone to mentor and supervise your clnical
> training.  And you have to find insurance to cover you as a "stand alone"
> student.
>
> --
> Liz Brooks JD IBCLC FILCA
> Wyndmoor, PA, USA
>
>             ***********************************************
>
> Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
> To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
> Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
> COMMANDS:
> 1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set
> lactnet nomail
> 2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
> 3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
> 4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
>

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome

ATOM RSS1 RSS2