Institute of Professional Editors (IPEd)
Update — March 2008
Read the latest on Accreditation in CredAbility 7 (Word 63KB).
Update — April 2007
There are two proposals that our Society needs to consider at our May Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) with reference to IPEd. Please take some time to read about the proposals by downloading the following documents before the May meeting, so that you can be ready to vote. It is vital that we have as many people at the May meeting as possible to have a say in the development of these two areas. If you cannot attend, a proxy form is now available for you to indicate your voting preference.
Official notice of the EGM (PDF 96 KB)
Establishing IPEd as a legal entity (PDF 39 KB)
Proposed accreditation scheme (PDF 32 KB)
Proxy voting form (PDF 39 KB)
Update — March 2007
IPEd Assessors Forum: First meeting, 2-3 December 2006, Melbourne
What a productive meeting!
Fourteen assessors from across Australia met in Melbourne to formalise the requirements for editors who wish to be accredited by IPEd. We covered a lot of ground over the two days, and the meeting ended with a fruitful outcome. In summary, we concluded that accreditation by portfolio submission is the ideal, but it’s also a complex process that needs to be implemented gradually to ensure its efficacy and sustainability. For the meantime, we propose an initial, basic accreditation step involving a nationwide test of copyediting and other essential skills.
Problems foreseen with portfolio assessment
The members of the Assessors Forum expected there’d be some problems in assessing applications by portfolio (prepared in accordance with current requirements):
| • | Detailed assessment criteria will be needed to ensure consistency across the system. The time taken to develop and approve these is likely to cause considerable delay in accreditation for Australian editors. | ||
| • | Considerable time and costs are likely be required to assess portfolios and for meetings of assessors panels. Assessment of individual applications and portfolios is likely to take about 20 hours per application. This translates into an application fee of about $1200! | ||
| • | There may be a ‘logjam’ with the first flush of applications, many of which may not meet the criteria for full accreditation and this will take up assessors’ time unnecessarily. | ||
| • | Initially, assessors may encounter difficulties in ensuring confidentiality of applicants. | ||
| • | Applications and portfolios are likely to require considerable time to prepare. | ||
| • | Applicants may need to submit more than one editing project to demonstrate a range of skills. | ||
| • | The application limit of 100 pages is too high (should be 30–50 pages). |
How do we feel about a base-level editing test?
The Accreditation Working Group had already ruled out a test because it could foresee problems in security, labour, remote sites and possible alienation of senior editors. The Assessors Forum, however, thought that these problems could be alleviated by early planning and a good dose of creativity on our part. In contrast, the problems we foresee with portfolio assessment require a lot more thinking, planning and time.
We propose to devise a test made up of a manuscript sample and short-answer questions to test for basic copyediting skills. The test would not replace the portfolio, but rather would provide, simultaneously, a basic level of accreditation and the ability to roll out the accreditation scheme pretty soon — by mid-to-late 2007.
Problems foreseen with a base-level accreditation test
Even though we propose a base-level test, we can see that we may have to overcome problems with:
| • | coordination of the test across the different sites | ||
| • | the need to provide remote and regional editors (and those with special needs) with equity of access | ||
| • | departing from the model approved by vote of the state and territory societies and getting approval for a new model | ||
| • | the need to set criteria and assign weighting to sections of Standards | ||
| • | time taken to prepare tests, sample tests and answers and other support materials/activities (such as workshops). |
Benefits of a base-level accreditation test
| • | Simple objectives: screen-out people who are obviously not yet experienced enough to be called an editor, provide beginning/junior editors with a base level of accreditation (not possible under portfolio-only assessment), provide opportunity for an advanced-level portfolio assessment to be developed — career advancement, recognition for senior editors. | ||
| • | Simpler to administer than portfolio applications; for example, it could be held on the same day around the country, with invigilators. | ||
| • | Easier for applicants ? less preparation time. | ||
| • | Easier to ensure fairness and consistency. |
How would the test work?
The test would be conducted once each year (initially at six-monthly intervals), on the same day in every capital city and at other approved locations. The possibility of email or web-based testing will be investigated to help editors who have difficulty reaching a set venue for various reasons.
The test would be marked ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ only — that means you’ll be assessed as competent or not. Applicants who fail the test would be able to request a report on their performance.
How will editors be accredited?
An editor who passes the test would gain certification as an IPEd Accredited Editor. Accreditation at the advanced level would be through a portfolio, the requirements for which we plan to revise in the coming months.
So what happens next?
Our recommendations will be presented to the Accreditation Board, IPEd and the state and territory societies for consideration. We’ll keep you posted through newsletters and the IPEd website.
Conclusion
By the end of the meeting we agreed to call this group the IPEd ‘Assessors Forum’. In the spirit of IPEd and its predecessor, CASE, the Assessors Forum will work towards consensus in all decision making. We believe that the model we propose offers the best solution to ensuring that IPEd can offer all Australian editors a fair, consistent and economical accreditation scheme.
Want to find out more, or tell us what you think? If you’d like to find out more about the recommendations proposed by the Assessors Forum, or if you wish to comment on these recommendations, please see the IPEd web site or contact your society of editors. |