I have tried before to set the record straight on the introduction of the
second credential by IBLCE, without success. Having read Barbara Wilson-Clay's
recent message, I feel responsible for trying once again to dispel the
misunderstanding, suspicion, mistrust, and fear that has accompanied this concept.
Barbara, I must respectfully disagree that the second credential was
presented as a fait accompli. This simply is completely untrue, although the
proposal has been seized upon by nearly every IBCLC in America as such. I know
this to be untrue because I was the person who made the original presentation of
the proposed credential. As originator of the concept, drafter of the
original proposal to the Board, supporting documentation and timeline, and, as I
remain keenly interested and engaged in the concept, I can assure you that the
original presentation of the second credential proposal was just that - A
PROPOSAL. (capitals added in desperate emphasis). I cannot and do not speak
for IBLCE at this time, but as of September 2004, when I made the first
presentations on this topic, it was, without a doubt, completely and totally,
introduced for discussion as a trial (A TRIAL, again in desperate emphasis, thank
you) credential.
It is true that, in 2004, IBLCE introduced the second credential with the
intention of eventually offering the credential, BUT on a short-term and
experimental basis. That was made very clear from the first information sheet
released. Discussions, focus-groups, surveys, individual emails, individual
discussions, and other communications were conducted during conferences,
meetings, and places where IBLCE hosted its exhibit. I know that some of you reading
Lactnet today participated in one or more of those discussions.
Much like Pathway F, the experimental pathway allowing participants to sit
for the exam with 500 supervised practice hours instead of the 2500, 4000 or
more required by other pathways, the second credential was intended to be an
experimental program to "test the waters" for such a program. Its purpose and
goals have been discussed frequently in this forum, and I will not repeat
them here, as one simply needs to consult the archives for more information.
As you may know, Pathway F was temporarily suspended after its trial period
for a period of evaluation, and reconsideration before the Board
decides/decided to add it permanently to the Pathways available to candidates.
IMHO, the furor and hoopla surrounding discussion of the proposed second
credential has clearly illustrated that there are a number of IBCLCs (both
participants on this listserv and not) who have not clearly listened to and read
the information available; and granted, they probably have not been afforded
the opportunity and information on this topic that they should have been by
IBLCE. There also has been an extraordinarily large amount of rumor and
incorrect information circulated about this proposal. However, it is time for
IBCLCs who read this forum to once and for all understand that at the time of its
introduction, the second credential WAS NOT a fait accompli. I think it
would also be helpful to share this information with your colleagues. This "fait
accompli" belief is not only incorrect; but it is also divisive,
prejudicial, and counterproductive. Most importantly, I strongly encourage all IBCLCs
to turn now to IBLCE to determine the current status of the second
credential.
Barbara Ash, lactation specialist
***********************************************
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]
The LACTNET email list is powered by LISTSERV (R).
There is only one LISTSERV. To learn more, visit:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
