Proposed Changes to ACVREP Certification

Over the past several weeks, the field has been surprised by a proposal to make sweeping changes to the ACVREP certification standards. On December 16th ACVREP stated the following:

"As part of a continuing effort to enhance organizational efficiency and effectiveness, the Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals (ACVREP) announces new eligibility criteria for professional certification in Low Vision Therapy, Orientation and Mobility, and Vision Rehabilitation Therapy." … "Beginning March 1, 2009, ACVREP will offer two (2) distinct "Tracks" for ACVREP professional certification. This initiative effectively terminates the "category" system used by ACVREP to determine an individual's eligibility to sit for the applicable certification examination."

The two new tracks consist of the following:

• "Track I (Full Certification) is designed for those candidates entering the field through the completion of a course of study leading to specialization or a degree in the applicable discipline (low vision therapy, orientation and mobility, and vision rehabilitation therapy)."
• "Track II (Provisional Certification) is designed for those candidates currently working in the field without academic specialization or a degree in the applicable discipline (low vision therapy, orientation and mobility, and vision rehabilitation therapy). Provisional Certification is also applicable to qualified candidates who received education and training outside of the United States. Provisional Certification candidates must demonstrate the successful completion of additional discipline-specific education and training directly related to the area for which they are applying and strong work-related performance. Provisional Certification is recognized for a period of 18 months. Prior to the conclusion of the Provisional Certification term, ACVREP will review the professional standing of the individual holding Provisional Certification and ensure that the individual has met continuing education requirements, maintained strong work-related performance, and not violated the Code of Ethics. If the individual holding Provisional Certification is found to have maintained strong work-related performance, met the continuing education requirements, and not violated the Code of Ethics; Full Certification will be confirmed at the conclusion of the Provisional Certification Term."

Thus Track I removed language specifically stating that university training is required and could be interpreted to mean that individuals could gain a specialization outside of a university program. Track II clearly stated that it was not required for the applicant to have any college or university preparation in the respective discipline or guidance and mentorship by certified supervisors to serve as a low vision therapist, orientation and mobility specialist, or vision rehabilitation therapist. In the case of orientation and mobility this reversed the standard requiring college or university preparation that has existed since certification was established in 1968. In essence an individual could become certified through agency training that includes 60 contact hours of instruction (the equivalent of the number of contact hours provided by 1 ¼ courses in a college or university program) and 2000 practice hours that are provided by the employer and could be without any contact with or even observation of O&M specialists. This varies greatly from the standard in the field that requires a 30 credit degree program (or related degree with O&M certificate) and supervision of practice by certified professionals.

Upon hearing of this change, Kathy Yale, chairperson of the Orientation and Mobility Division and chairperson of the Council of Division Chair of AER, contacted practitioners and leaders in the discipline of orientation and mobility to alert them to this change. From this alert a thread of emails emerged between an ad hoc group and Garett Holm, the Director of ACVREP. During most of this dialog Mr. Holm defended the right of ACVREP to change the standards without broad input from certificants. Mr. Holm indicated that the major rationale of the ACVREP board for this sweeping change was to address the shortage of personnel in the field of visual impairment and blindness. The ad hoc group began to address this issue by generating an alternative proposal that is designed to help alleviate the personnel shortage but without lowering the standards for certification. Also during this continuing dialog, Mr. Holm agreed to hold a future conference call with the ad hoc group of certificants to discuss the issues.

There is great concern over the actions of ACVREP in regard to the methods it has used to propose certification changes. While ACVREP is not itself accredited by the accepted national accrediting body, the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), it does hold itself out to be a member of the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA) and as such should abide by the stated guidelines of NOCA in regard to setting certification standards. According to NOCA (1996, p. 152):

"Those who hold a stake in the outcomes of the credentialing decisions made via a credentialing program should be identified and then systematically included in the formulation, design, and implementation of the policy underlying the establishment of credentialing performance standards."

Instead of bringing certificants into the discussion of possible changes to certification, ACVREP made this decision behind closed doors. These proposed changes to certification were developed by a self-selected group of individuals that did not have adequate representation from COMS.

A conference call was scheduled to take place on January 14th between the ad hoc group and the board of ACVREP. One hour prior to this conference call, the Board of ACVREP made the following public announcement:

"Based upon the range of supportive, complimentary and negative comments received from our stakeholders, the ACVREP Board of Directors has decided to postpone the implementation of Provisional Certification and relevant policies (initially scheduled for March 1, 2009).

The purpose behind this postponement is to allow for further discussion and collaboration regarding the issues and rationale that served as the basis of the decisions. ACVREP is confident that policies will ultimately be instituted and implemented that serve to strengthen the quality of ACVREP certification, maintain strong professional standards, and provide confidence to individuals seeking and receiving services."

The conference call was conducted as scheduled with ACVREP defending its position but suggesting that a postponement in implementation of the proposed new standards would permit both sides on this issue to discuss the problems of personnel shortage and formulate an alternative approach. Mr. Holm stated that he had made contact with Mr. Carl Augusto of AFB and invited him to facilitate a discussion of the issue of personnel shortage at the Josephine Taylor Leadership Institute in March. He also announced that ACVREP has extended an invitation to AER, and the VisionShare Alliance to participate in this meeting.

Analysis of the conference call has led to only partial satisfaction with the outcome. While it is appreciated that the changes have been put on hold, many are concerned that this might simply be a stalling tactic that will end up being a pause before ACVREP implements their original proposal. The basis of this suspicion comes from the organization's stalwart defense of their original proposal and its failure to realize that it might be a problem. Instead of apologizing for a proposal that lowers current standards, ACVREP started the conference call by defending their actions. Later in the conference ACVREP announced that it had contacted other organizations who have been invited to partake in a discussion of future certification standards as they concern personnel shortages. This was done without the input of certificants and without guidelines regarding the proportion of certificants in relation to others to be present. This disregard for establishing balanced representation with a formula for direct input from the professionals has many in the field doubting the genuine desire of ACVREP to solicit a cooperative solution to the certification crisis. Finally, many within the field of orientation and mobility have expressed concern that ACVREP has only put their proposal on hold rather than rescinding the proposal. Evidence of a genuine effort should have included the scrapping of the original proposal in favor of starting over again with broad representation by certificants. For all of these reasons, many within the field are cautiously awaiting the next steps to see if there is a genuine effort to rectify these errors. If not, some are suggesting that we renounce ACVREP certification and establish a new independent certification body for orientation and mobility.

At the present time, communication between Mr. Holm, Mr. Augusto, and Mr. Gandorf is taking place to determine the nature and details of a future meeting. At its most recent meeting, the board of AER established a task force consisting of Kathy Yale, Laura Bozeman, Grace Ambrose Zaken and Pat Leader to represent AER at the meeting. Further information about this meeting will be shared as it becomes available.

References:

1. National Organization for Competency Assurance, 1996 (Browning, A.H., Bugbee, A.C. and Mullins, M.A, editors). Certification: A NOCA Handbook.