Presentation on theme: "NADP Individual Accreditation Scheme Conference June 2010."— Presentation transcript:
NADP Individual Accreditation Scheme Conference June 2010
Aim brief recap of the scheme and background update on what we have been doing this year critical questions next steps
Characteristics of accreditation it will encourage critical reflection it will demonstrate professionalism, raise status and encourage professional pride it aims to recognise practitioners’ contributions at work and within the sector as a whole it should promote collaboration and the sharing of good practices
The Basics rigorous - must be a genuine demonstration and not a 'wave through' or 'tick box' exercise comprehensive - needs to be applicable and relevant to a wide range of professional roles cost effective - it must be affordable to members but not costly to NADP manageable - by NADP rather than handing it over to another body
Eligibility practitioners who fulfil full membership criteria of NADP normally 3 years relevant experience within sector currently open to those outside NADP scheme eventually to link to NADP plan for Accreditation of Services
How & When? accreditation is awarded by a Panel with an independent Chair – established by NADP Board Panel to consist of 5 - 2 Board (not NADP Chair), 2 non-Board, plus independent Chair timescales – 2 opportunities to apply each year, June (July?) and December (January?) decision from Panel within 12 weeks of submission
Levels of accreditation 3 levels of accreditation, applicants apply for a level appropriate to their circumstances Associate Fellow Senior Fellow
How & What to submit There are four topics about which to submit and these are: Disabled Students Disability, Society & Education Institutional Policies and Practices Quality Assurance and CPD Applicants must also submit a Reflective Journal/Diary of one week's work
How & What to submit Applications for Associate Accreditation must include: TWO pieces from the topics one of which must be about the topic 'Disabled Students' Applications for Fellow Accreditation must include: THREE pieces from the topics one of which must be about the topic 'Disabled Students' Applications for Senior Fellow Accreditation must include: FOUR pieces covering all of the topics an additional piece on a topic of interest to the applicant Every submission must be accompanied by a Reflective Journal/Diary of approximately one week's work
How & What to submit Submissions must be verified as accurate by the applicants Line Manager or equivalent. all submissions should be made electronically a variety of formats and methods may be used to reflect an inclusive approach e.g audio presentation, powerpoint, mind map as a guide submissions should equate to 500 - 750 words
Activities since June 2009 clarified that no APL is acceptable developed the idea of a Reflective Journal/Diary for all submissions Guidance Notes for Applicants written by AH application form devised mini-pilot at UCLan – Advisers + AH feedback from mini-pilot to Board
Activities since June 2009 initial contact made with AMOSSHE for their support Board members have started trialling the accreditation process seeking legal and financial advice on membership implications discussed 'shape' of numbers at the accreditation levels discussed criteria for differentiating accreditation levels
Possible rough accreditation criteria Associate 3yrs full time equivalent working within disabled student context - demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the context in practice Fellow As above but with an extra demonstration of repeated input at an institutional strategic level Senior Fellow As above but with an extra demonstration of repeated input on a national level
Outcomes from mini-pilot (1) should practitioners with their ‘own’ professional organisation be included e.g. psychologists, interpreters? queried eligibility of non-NADP applications? supported principle that applicants should fulfil criteria for full membership supported constitution of the Panel and role of Chair supported dates for application and timescale for deliberation by Panel
Outcomes from mini-pilot (2) clear expectations that several years experience should enable accreditation at Fellow level how would an Associate or Fellow provide evidence to progress to next level without apparent job promotion?
Outcomes from mini-pilot (3) balance between breadth and depth in written submissions - is 500-750 words sufficient to enable rigorous demonstration? commented on limitations of one week of Reflective Diary - Associate and Fellow applicants may not be able to demonstrate breadth and depth in one week?
Key questions for Conference what would be the ideal profile shape? are the rough criteria appropriate? do you think the Reflective Diary is the best way of establishing accreditation level? does this enable progression from Associate to Fellow and Fellow to Senior? how can written submissions balance depth and breadth of knowledge/experience within word count? in the long term should accreditation a pre-requisite for new members and for full membership? promotion of accreditation to members and beyond
Next steps Finance Sub-committee analysing cost Sub-committee seeking legal advice re-alignment of Institutional membership category to reflect expansion in services Sub-committee consulting AMOSSHE on support for project Power-point presentation being developed for promotion of scheme NADP Board continue trial application process expand trial to other groups - volunteers? incorporate Conference feedback
Sub-Committee contacts Catherine Badminton - email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Nicki Martin - email@example.com@lse.ac.uk Karen Robson - firstname.lastname@example.org@uwic.ac.uk Martin Smith - email@example.com@brunel.ac.uk Paddy Turner - firstname.lastname@example.org@shu.ac.uk
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.