?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Reviewing the CTP: moving it beyond a "logical step" - Chronarchy

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> Chronarchy.com

Links
Ár nDraíocht Féin
Three Cranes
MySpace
Chaos Matrix
OSU PSA

May 4th, 2010


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
02:12 pm - Reviewing the CTP: moving it beyond a "logical step"
A long-standing problem with the ADF Clergy Training Program has been the number of people who seek to enroll in it because it is a "next logical step" beyond the Dedicant Path. Separating out these two programs (and, hopefully, encouraging the IP as a far more appropriate "next logical step") has a variety of parts to it, but the one I wish to focus on today is adding additional requirements to starting the CTP.

Right now, there are only two technical requirements to start the CTP: pass the DP, and write a vocational statement.

Because of this, we have had to hold DP students to a "higher standard" for entry into the CTP, which has led to much angst over being forced to re-write DP documentation. Some of this was founded in fact: at one time it was explicitly mentioned that if your DP wasn't "good enough," you might have to go back and re-write some of it. To be perfectly frank, I don't know that we ever required anyone to actually go back and re-write any, and I do know that under my tenure as Clergy Council Preceptor, we have certainly not done so. What we have done instead is required people to start by completing courses that would help them in clergy work, such as Liturgy 1, Trance 1, or Research and Composition.

This is well and good, and teaches some necessary skills, but what we have found is that the DP simply doesn't teach enough of the things we want (and need) it to teach in order for our Priests to enter the CTP with a somewhat common set of skills that they really need to have from the start.

There have been several suggestions to remedy this:
  1. Leave it as it is – Continue to allow DP students to enter without further work.
  2. Require completion of the GSP prior to CTP enrollment – In other words, what is now the First Circle of the CTP becomes a course you must complete before you can embark on priestly training.
  3. Require the Initiate Path prior to CTP enrollment – This would provide a less academically-oriented introduction to many of the skills required.
  4. Create a pre-CTP course – Select 4-6 "must have" courses and require those prior to enrollment in the CTP.
Each of these possibilities has its own merits, and each has its disadvantages.

As it stands, the status quo has issues, both from a presentation standpoint (it will just remain the "next logical step") and from an administrative standpoint. Specifically, we have roughly 49 total CTP students, 38 of which are still active, and about half of those have submitted anything in the past month. The typical student is not very active at all, and having students engage in the "next logical step" rather than engage in "the thing I'm totally passionate about" creates a burden on the administrative side that would best be avoided.

The use of the GSP and the IP are both very attractive, as each provides an excellent set of skills for our clergy to draw on. A central issue with using a complete program, though, is that it sets up a "next logical step" all over again, with Initiates and Generalists both seeing the CTP as the "next hill to climb" in their training. Add to this the fact that Initiation is not a "sure-to-pass" scenario, and people can be prevented from ever joining the Clergy if they can't get through the Initiation.

Creating a pre-CTP course that draws from the GSP and the IP, and also has some unique courses, could help differentiate the CTP from other coursework (in other words, you wouldn't become "automatically eligible" for the CTP by doing other work), so people would have to consciously seek to do the groundwork required to enter the CTP, and they would end up undertaking at least one or two courses that are not offered and will not transfer into other coursework.

It is this last option that I am currently leaning toward recommending: it forces one to put a deliberate foot on the path toward clergy, a step that does not go in the same direction as any other path the person might be on. Additionally, it allows us to eliminate coursework that should already be "common knowledge" to our Priest candidates from our CTP circles, which makes room for more advanced coursework earlier on (as an example, if we put IE Myth 1 in the "pre-CTP" coursework, we can put IE Myth 2 in CTP 1; or if we put Liturgy 1 in the "pre-CTP," we can put Liturgical Practicum 1 in CTP 1).

Perhaps most importantly, we can take more recent work that is on the same level as other CTP work and review that (rather than reviewing DP work) as our basis for entrance to the CTP. This advantages both the student and the CC Officers who need to review their work: with the DP around for over 10 years now, some of those who apply for the CTP have only very old work to present to us, and it is often difficult to judge their ability to do the work. The student also has an advantage of having worked with a reviewer on items like source citation, writing style, and learning how to answer the questions. This will, I think, make both students and the Clergy Council Officers more comfortable with the ability of those students to complete the CTP.

Of course, students already engaged in the CTP would not be required to do anything silly like complete these pre-CTP courses and then re-enroll. . . the aim is future-looking, not backward-looking. It's just one step along the way of deepening the CTP for future students. . . and any current students who wish to switch to the revised program.
Current Location: Southeast of Disorder
Current Mood: hopefulhopeful
Current Music: "Hula Girl At Heart", -JB
Tags: , ,

(25 comments Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:qorinda
Date:May 4th, 2010 06:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
FWIW, I like the idea of a Pre-CTP course myself. I think it should also include some basic stuff in actually running a ritual.... voice projection, maybe Kirk's 4 circles of influence, and something to do with people skills. These are practical skills that anyone working towards clergy should have (and incidentally, these may be part of a SD study program someday that will make ADF's SDs stronger).
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 4th, 2010 07:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
We've got some various ideas. Kirk's stuff is already in the CTP, under Theatre for Ritual 1, which I suspect we'll move lower in the circles.

I'd love to see an SD study program one day.

If we can ever figure out what an SD actually is, from an organizational standpoint.
[User Picture]
From:anivair
Date:May 4th, 2010 07:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I agree. I see the next logical step after the DP to be either a guild program on the IP. Not everyone will or should want to be clergy. And I have no problem making the road a bit steep.
[User Picture]
From:acousticdryad
Date:May 4th, 2010 06:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'll be honest, I'm still trying to figure out what the purpose of the IP is. Otherwise I think using it or the GSP as an intro the the CTP is a right fine idea.
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 4th, 2010 06:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
There's an article about this that should be in the next edition of Oak Leaves, in mailboxes soon :)

One issue that I didn't mention with them is that they're very long courses (the IP will add a full year between DP and CTP), and the GSP doesn't necessarily teach things that will be completely relevant to our clergy. It certainly doesn't really provide quite enough "clergy-like" skills for us to consecrate from.
[User Picture]
From:athenamsb
Date:May 4th, 2010 08:32 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Only a year? Man, am I behind!
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 4th, 2010 08:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Indeed: 10 months, if you want to be specific about the minimum amount of time it could take. :)
From:(Anonymous)
Date:May 21st, 2010 10:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I don't know about the IP but I do know it took me about 5 months to complete the GSP, once my first submission was finally approved (I think it took my first reviewer about 20 months to finally approve my first course).
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 24th, 2010 12:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*nods* I probably spent about two months, total, if you lined up all the actual days I worked on the GSP. But I spread that two months over about three years :)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 4th, 2010 07:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I remembered a bit about yours, which is why I changed my original post from "we didn't ever require it" to "I don't know that we required it". . . because I honestly couldn't remember if your DP got caught in a "this isn't good enough for the CTP" or "this isn't good enough for something else" fiasco. Whatever it was, I recall it as a fiasco.

I took over the CC Preceptorship in October, but I began asserting some minor changes a bit before that. I think your DP was about a year before I was on the Officers list and was voting on things like this. We've done a *lot* of improvement since then.

In any case, the process has become very different since you went through it: I now personally review all DP's for applicants (when I can. . . sometimes they aren't available), we are explicit in what we recommend and why (including clarifying responses whenever a question is raised), and we are clear about whether things are remedial or whether we believe that the student will merely benefit through doing that portion (sometimes, we assign stuff to help cultivate growth where we see potential rather than because the student needs remedial work in an area).

The GSP is the first circle right now, but that will be changing. We know that we will re-balance the courses (watch for a future post on those recommendations) because we're so dissatisfied with the GSP as a "first circle" to the CTP at this time.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 4th, 2010 08:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I tried to use a polite word, and "fiasco" seemed about as polite as possible, given the circumstances.

At this point, we've improved communication, reviewing processes, and timelines. It's a far better system. But we will (as always) have a ways to go to make it perfect.
[User Picture]
From:anivair
Date:May 4th, 2010 07:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Not that i mind asking people to redo old work. Clergy (potential clergy) should be held to a higher standard.

But it seems like a band aid. Like, "this was good enough to pass before when we thought you just wanted to hang out, but now that you're serious, it's not okay". You should either pass or you don't. I don't want to be babied because I don't want to be clergy or needlessly tossed around because I do.

that's why I'd prefer to have a pre-clergy program. It could, in a perfect world, be something that is modified based on what you did or did not do before. For example, if your DP work wasn't focused enough on meditation for you to start the clergy path, instead of backtracking and saying "do more" give a different assignment (maybe trance 1 or something similar).
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 4th, 2010 08:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Exactly. The general consensus is now, "If you passed it, you passed." The business of making people re-do work because it was "good enough" on one level but not on another was infuriating to me, generally. And I wasn't even going through it.
[User Picture]
From:athenamsb
Date:May 4th, 2010 08:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
On an only loosely related note...what are our current policies for students who may desire to complete the Clergy training programs for the study without the consecration/ordination business? I know there has been talk on and off about additional circles in the GSP, but any thoughts?

Heh, of course, I will probably be busy with the Liturgists Guild study program for quite some time. :D
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 4th, 2010 08:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
No real additional thoughts. There was an "OSP" that I was developing for a while, but I didn't have a lot of interest. "OSP" stands for "Open Study Program" where there are a core of courses and then some electives to go along with them. See http://www.adf.org/cgi-bin/adf/wiki/view/Main/PossibleStudyPrograms for more information on where I was initially headed with that.

GSP 2 and GSP 3 were originally conceived, but they've been thrown way on the backburner, and are unlikely to ever get finished. See http://www.adf.org/cgi-bin/adf/wiki/view/Main/GeneralistStudyProgram for some drafts.

But yes, the LGSP will keep you busy for a very long time, indeed. :)

And you can do whatever exit standards you want. . . but we don't have the volunteer power to grade them for people who are not enrolled at this point.
[User Picture]
From:prophet_maid
Date:May 4th, 2010 10:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I really like the idea of a pre-CTP course. My first submitted course for the GSP (which I wrote while considering applying for the CTP) was Liturgy 1 for that very reason.

I do find it odd that the GSP and CTP are identical.
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 4th, 2010 10:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The identicality (look at me: makin' up words) of the GSP and CTP was a matter of necessity: no one was developing the CTP, and it had sort of been sitting on the shelf for (literally) about a decade without movement.

We've gotten past that necessity, so it's time to reduce the identicality :)

Liturgy 1 is among the suggested "pre-CTP" courses, for sure.
[User Picture]
From:seamus_mcnasty
Date:May 5th, 2010 12:49 am (UTC)
(Link)
As I stated to you in discussions I like the Pre-clery course work. Michael I again am amazed at your forethought, dedication and passion for this program. ADF should be VERY thankful to you for continued work! I know I am!
THANK YOU!
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 5th, 2010 12:59 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, at the moment it's more "hindthought" since I've been through the program :)

But you're welcome, of course. And thank you!
[User Picture]
From:verginiamus
Date:May 5th, 2010 06:44 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I am not interested in clergy, and have been in ADF for four years. However, I am totally confused on the different programs. I have finished my DP. But what is the next step? That is how confusing the thing it. Not all Guilds have programs, and how do they fit in? Why the GSP? I am still trying to figure out the difference between the CTP and the IP. Perhaps, people have been inside these programs for so long that they have added parts (unwritten) to fill in the gaps or whatever. I would like to see a tree diagram or something.

What are my choices after DP? What if I don't want to be a priest or my Guild hasn't an approved program.... Also, what if I want to go deeper into my hearth culture.... Just thoughts and questions that pop up with me from time to time. As you can see the written stuff to me is as clear as mud. What does the GSP program do anyway?
[User Picture]
From:seamus_mcnasty
Date:May 6th, 2010 02:44 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think the IP would be a good choice for continuing the work that you started on the DP. If you are a member of a guild that doesn't have a study program shake some trees and find out why. As for hearth culture, I know some Orders that are in the works that may help with that (depending on which culture)...the GSP would also be a good second step for anyone wanting to deepen their work.

The tree chart would look like a solid trunk with branches, first guild branches all shooting off the main GSP branch and then there would be a CTP branch that will soon have smaller branches(elective courses)steming off and finally the last branch would be IP (also I think Ian and Michael are doing some work on the next step there)...somewhere in the mix is the new Orders branch and hearth piety

The GSP is pretty much courses from the guild study programs pulled together to create a generalist study program to help continue the DP work...

gee I may have just made it muddier...
[User Picture]
From:erinelfdp
Date:May 5th, 2010 11:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Not that I expect my opinion to count for a whole lot, but I figured I'd throw in my two cents anyway.

I like the idea of a pre-CTP course. If possible, though, I'd like it to focus a lot more on specific ritual practice. As it stands, in the DP, there are only two parts that actually require an ADF-style ritual: at least 4 of the high days, and the dedicant's oath. It's conceivable that someone could do all of their personal practice (and have it be fulfilling, meaningful personal practice) without ever including an ADF-style ritual in that. At least that's how I read it. Not that I'd do that, but it's conceivable. Point is, I really think there needs to be more focus on ritual itself, once you've got the basics down. After all, if you want to be a priest, you should probably know that stuff, right?

I, for one, KNOW I wouldn't be ready to start clergy training when I finish my DP. ...whenever that happens. Ahem. I don't feel any particular need to do a specific program after I finish the DP, though. Most likely, I'll just continue to focus on my personal practice, and try and get more involved with 3CG. Since I'll be in grad school by that time, and I may be going back to OSU for that... who knows.
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 6th, 2010 04:01 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Every opinion counts, which is why I post stuff ;)

Ritual will definitely be part of that pre-CTP, and discipline might be as well. There will definitely be a personal practice component: there has to be.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com