by Jonathan M. Taylor, Assoc. AIA, LEED-AP
New England Associate Director, National Associates Committee
IDP State Coordinator, Massachusetts

Summary: The profession would benefit if NCARB’s member boards reject Resolution 2008-07 at their annual meeting later this month.

The resolution is not about supervisor guidelines; NCARB is currently editing a final version for distribution. The resolution is also not about an online reporting system; NCARB is working on creating this system. Both supervisor guidelines and an online reporting system will happen; the joint support from the AIA and NCARB is there.

So what then is Resolution 2008-07 about? Rarely mentioned, the elephant in the room, it is about cheating, or falsified IDP experience reports. Who wants to side with cheaters or procrastinators?

Not NCARB; NCARB’s Council of Directors means well (supporting the resolution 11-0).

Not the AIA either; however the AIA Board of Directors just requested NCARB “suspend any action on limitations to IDP reporting periods.”

So how is it that the two organizations who run IDP as a joint program disagree on this resolution? That is simple. They disagree on the resolution, not on cheating or procrastinating. The resolution misses the forest for the trees.

Accuracy is not timeliness
The profession benefits when changes to our licensing requirements (NAAB, IDP, ARE) are psychometrically defensible. Improving validity and accuracy of IDP experience reported is more defensible than merely increasing the frequency of reporting. The resolution presumes they are inextricably one and the same. They are not.

1. The validity of the experience submitted is what should be questioned. Unfortunately, the resolution will not improve upon the validity of experiences being reported.
2. The frequency that IDP experience reports are to be submitted is addressed in the resolution by presuming any experience (provable or not) over eight months is no longer valid experience. The resolution will also prevent anyone from submitting more than six months of experience at once (six months of experience with two months to report).

The validity of the experience submitted is what should be questioned

Should valid experience ever expire? No; not if it is valid. If you agree, this simply becomes a design problem on how to validate the experience accurately. Only if it cannot be validated should it not be accepted.

To presume valid experience older than eight months cannot be verified is to put on blinders to the availability of accurate accounting records of many firms and the ethical conduct of many architects signing IDP forms.

One size does not fit all
From a managerial perspective, the easier solution is wholesale rejection of experience (valid or not) beyond a certain date. One-size-fits-all regulations work really well for those enforcing them; it will make my job much easier as an IDP state coordinator.

Supervisors and mentors act as agents of their state’s licensure boards when they sign IDP verification forms. Their obligation is to be ethical and not verify a form when it is false. Therefore, the intern is not the only culpable party when NCARB receives a false IDP verification form. The profession must not forget about the role of licensed supervisors currently signing these forms with their name and registration number. The responsibilities of the IDP mentor and program administrator (NCARB) to review these forms cannot be overlooked either.

Supervisors and mentors act as agents of their state’s licensure boards when they sign IDP verification forms

Certainly, falsifying documentation of experience over eight months cannot occur if submitting it is not allowed. But the same supervisor who currently shirks responsibility when signing IDP experience forms for durations exceeding six months will do the same for durations of six months or less. Would a better solution not be to raise the bar on questionable IDP verification forms? How about actually training supervisors? Web site guidelines remain far off from actual training.

In the end, how will the profession be better served? The answer to that is simple, too. By focusing our collective energies not on the time of reporting but on its accuracy, the profession will have increased accountability of its internship program. Furthermore, it will not delay public access to increased numbers of guardians of health, safety, and welfare for the sake of an arbitrary line in the sand. A first measure in this effort is voting “no” on Resolution 2008-07.

Tell us what you think: Should training experience become invalid?