This comment jibed with my reply to Dr. Guzman:
let them take the board exam. they did not meet the qualification according to the law, so why exempt. kya nga may board eh. grabeng blunder naman to.
My comment through text to Dr. Guzman about those who were rushing for their application but who may have had documentary and other problems, including the courses was this: "Tell them to take the Board exam."
The Grandfather's Clause has a specific life span, and there was ample time already for everyone to keep. After this time is over, there is still the Board exam. So, why bend the law too much when there are still other avenues. Besides, I am of the opinion that having been given sufficient time, we should now know how many have qualified and should work professionally as Guidance Counselors. The next way to get the license would be the licensure examinations.
I bet among the "dialogue" points before there was this "bending" or lifting of requirements should have been the review centers. Right now, the Board has not stated anything on this matter. PRC has a ruling that reviews should be done in the schools where the course is offered. However, in my contacts with some people who are in the know about this matter, there are a lot of documents each school MUST provide before they are given the right to hold review classes with pay. I know for one, a group of students from different schools who just came together on their own and wrote the Department Chair about their need for professors who could provide them review sessions. The said Head of the Department met and tackled this letter with the faculty, and their decision? The faculty who taught the subject accompany these students FOR FREE, WITHOUT PAY WHATSOEVER, in scheduled review sessions. I believe that if I own that school, I'll make sure that my students will pass the exams or else, their failure would boomerang on me. Hence that was a responsible decision. When a school operates review sessions for a fee but sans the CHED or PRC (sino ba sa dalawa ang nagbibigay nito) authorization, the penalty can be quite heavy.
So go ahead, while it's still early, talk with your school about the review sessions you should set up so that your Board examinees will have more chances of passing. Better than doing nothing and magkanya-kanya tayo, di ba? I will ask my fellow IPCAP Board what we can do in this matter, if ever this is something we may be allowed to do something about. Just a thought. That's what a professional organization is for anyway: if this is acceptable and non-offensive or legal.
Besides, it remains as to whether college graduates or those with Bachelor's degree in Guidance and Counseling will be allowed to take the Board exam. One thing I am pretty sure of is that there was at least one who only had 6 units of Masters level course who took the 1st Board and passed!
So, the earlier we will get a clearer declaration from the Board, the better so that those who need to have the license can be qualified to take the Board.
Antabayan ang susunod na kabanata. God bless
Monday, February 09, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
well it's just easy for them to tell we should take the exam when in truth there had been INJUSTICE in the sense that they have allowed some unqualified people to take oath and be licensed. these people (we know) fell short of the RA requirements for grandfather clause, how is that? they're not getting the real point.
i think this licensure thing for the gudiance counselors has become a mediocer already. requirements? what requirements they can't seem to make up their minds about the requirements. they say one thing and the next thing we know they change it again. I am about to graduate and how many times have they changed the required qualifications? is it because they want to accomodate more who are not qualified for the lolo clause but doesn't want to take the exam.
it just shows that how inconsistent they are. no coordination whatsoever. i know for a fact that in the last batch of oath-takers there is an applicant whose undergrad is not GC and yet nakalusot dahil sa years of experience nya. partida pa, hindi pa nya tapos ang masters nya.
very inconsistent indeed. i know 2 persons who were granted the lolo clause just because they know the "correct persons". They did not even want to announce it to the group.
i am a registered guidance counselor but i am thinking of applying for certification as psychologist.
the certification is merely a paper of recognition from a professional organization of practitioners (PAP) and is different from a legal license as in the case of being a registered guidance counselor.
but with the seemingly stupid inconsistencies and blatant misinterpretations and misapplications of the rules of the law (RA 9258) in the professionalization of guidance counselors, i feel i would be more proud in obtaining a certification more than being licensed and registered as a guidance counselor.
or maybe not.this may just be me tired and exasperated from all the mistakes of our so-called elders.
father bern the list of the latest batch of guidance counselors were posted on Feb.20,2008. Many of us submitted our documents last December and January, 2008, may we know when the names of these guidance counselors be published, I know that many of us are anxiously waiting for the result because we have been given a deadline by the schools until the last week of March to have our license and if we don't the license by that time we were told to look for another job. I hope that people from the PRB will hear our plea regarding this matter thank you very much Father Bern God Bless and more power to you.
Post a Comment