Nancy Herrick

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Take Charge of Your Life Pilot Mentoring Program #3606
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    Connecting with your mentor on a regular basis over the period of time that you are preparing to facilitate the workshop is very important. If a mentee picks up the material, looks it over once, and then does not connect with his mentor, the process of thinking through the material, how you will teach it, how to structure the activities, when and how much to demonstrate, how much time will you need to allow for each activity, knowing the activities that you intend to use, etc. will halt, get lost in life happenings, and your enthusiasm may wain. Connecting regularly over a several weeks or months period, will keep the process and procedures on your mind. You will also find that you will be much more inclined to set up a date for the workshop and advertise it. Procrastination is not an effective behavior for someone facing the learning curve. Persistence is a much more effect behavior and will get you to your goal feeling more confident and prepared. Join the mentoring process, you’ll be glad you did. Facilitating this workshop will become a highlight in your life each time you provide it. Your participants will surprise you at how much TCOYL changes their lives in only six hours. Dr. Glasser’s concepts and theory are dynamite!

    in reply to: Stages in Processing New Ideas #2777
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    Stages are fine and could work well. Our problem with getting things published and accepted is not getting enough input and ideas at the input phase, it is getting them to the committee or group that is writing up the idea in the first place. Once hours of committed work have gone into writing policy or process, tearing it apart and changing every aspect of it at the input level is very discouraging to the ones who have spent time and effort to produce the document. Tweaking or adding considerations that had not been thought of initially is what is expected and welcomed. I am in favor of having members write their changes and present them for consideration at the input phase. Verbal suggestions and vetos at this input stage should be limited.

    in reply to: Revised Reality Therapy Training #2776
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    Basic Reality Therapy Counseling Skills This course was initially designed at the board meeting committee in Oct 2015. It is being detailed and published in draft form in Jan and Feb 2016. The program committee is at work now on the details and if anyone has any suggestions for inclusions, we are open to these at this time. The format has been suggested:
    1st segment: 3 days @ 6 hours per day Introduction and basic RT structure and content
    2nd segment: 5 days of practicum divided by time in between sessions;2-Practical skills
    development and 3- integration of the process.
    3rd segment: two days of 6 hrs each: Integration and endorsement with certificate
    Certificate in Reality Therapy Counseling Skills is a competency based course.
    We are detailing the skills and competency expected for the curriculum.

    in reply to: WGI PROGRAMS FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS – PROPOSAL #2775
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    Now that we have the TCOYL workshop organized and operating in many countries, I think we can say that the members of our organization are looking for shorter workshop formats for teaching CT. I like the idea that we retain our basic training structure as an introduction and add new, short workshops that will increase the interest and the skill development of people in various fields of work. Like what Bette suggested on education, with multiple workshop topics and skills. We could design these for all areas of interest: corrections, spirituality, business, health services, social services, parenting, personal wellness. Many of our faculty are teaching these now. I think we need to adopt a promotion of “train the trainers”. Members who have created workshops with specific skills targeted, could be encouraged to become “experts” in their workshop format and train others who would like to teach these skills using the experts’ workshop format. We have the beginning of this process established by a few of our members. I believe the program committee would be elated to have more “experts” step forward.

    in reply to: How can WGI programs add accreditation value to participants? #2774
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    CEU’s and accreditation is important in the USA and in many other countries. I believe if we could use this in our advertising, we might increase interest in our programs. At present, we can offer continuing credit in only some of our training programs, but not all.

    To get accreditation from a variety of professional organizations, we may want to create a research committee to investigate what it would take to be able to offer continuing education credit in different fields and in various countries. I am assuming that our executive director has investigated sources that have been suggested, but there may be individuals in other countries that could lead us to other professional accrediting agencies. This is a big job and not one that we should expect one person to deal with all the investigation and paperwork.

    in reply to: Ideas for Promoting the Endowment Fund #2773
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    A suggestion for promotion may be to publish in the newsletter a generic thank you to all who have made donations to the endowment and how it has grown over the last year. This would not be a request for people to donate, but a reminder of how important the endowment is to the organization.

    in reply to: Ideas for Promoting the Endowment Fund #1946
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    What about having certain issues or training focuses listed periodically with the endowment link. Stories of what our members are doing with a focus on the great changes and improvements in people’s lives might pull on people’s passions, show the benefits of our work and encourage them to support our operations.

    in reply to: Types of Membership #1945
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    I think we want people to know something about CT and Glasser’s teachings before they vote on decisions about how the organization is run. For me, that is a minimum of some training; university courses, workshops, intensives, etc. So for the website, I would say that anyone who logs in is NOT a member until they take some training and pay fees for our teaching.
    1. Then they could sign up and pay a membership fee. These people would be classified as associates (those in the process of training. I don’t think their membership fee should be more than $10-$20. I don’t think they should have a vote on decisions or policy. They could have access to providing feedback or opinions about issues, but no vote.
    2. The first level of membership that should have a vote on policy would be the full member (CTRTC). That fee could be rather low, so that they would continue to pay and remain an active member for many years. Fee might be $30-40US
    If CTRTC’s become facilitators for TCOYL they will pay the fee for that. (Not a different voting right or membership fee.)
    3. The next level would be faculty who would pay $60US These people have more investment in the organization and we could say they have 2 votes if you want to, but one vote is ok as that would be more equal to the full members. We can be pretty certain that more faculty will pay attention to the voting opportunity and therefore we would have many more faculty votes on policy. This would provide them more strength in the decision making process by self-selection.

    This makes the structure simpler and easier for people to understand. I don’t think we will be cutting off income from fees that would make a difference in our operating costs. The new website with the log in passwords has already defined what people can access on the site.
    I think our efforts in the next couple years should be to make certification and faculty easier to acquire and that will increase our funding more effectively than changing all the fee structure.

    in reply to: Costs of Membership #1944
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    Each country knows their economy and what the average income is for their population. I think we could find an international website that would provide information about what is a fair and equitable fee for training and also for dues to professional organizations in each country. Then instead of our board trying to set these fees, we could use a sliding scale appropriate to each country and set our fees accordingly.

    in reply to: Database transition #1943
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    I believe that updating and backing up our data base is a first priority at this time. I am with Jim in that the number of hours is not the issue, it is that we have not made this a priority and hired someone to focus on it with no interruptions. If this is the reason that the membership drive has not been set up until Feb, then that indicates to me an even more emergency situation. It could be that we are expecting one or two people to do more than we are paying them for. We seem to be stacking the jobs and responsibilities on Kim and Denise and yet not paying them for full time employment. I think we should hire another person to deal with the data. A couple weeks salary will not break our budget. A delayed membership drive or inability to enter the data into a database, may do long term damage to the organization as a whole. Nancy H.

    in reply to: WGI PROGRAMS FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS – PROPOSAL #1942
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    As to whether a new structure will make it simpler, I would say that we may be making the process more complicated on the face of it, but more user-friendly and cost effective for most people. The terms “easy” and “hard” are not how I want to think about the new structure. I want to focus on the cost-effectiveness, interest-orientation, quality of understanding and usefulness of learning. If we design a structure that provides more opportunities, more internet options, more topics of interest, and all including CT principles and concepts, we will be sharing CT with the world and a greater number of individuals around the globe.
    Japan and Korea (and perhaps other regions) have designed and provided the CT/RT/LM somewhat differently than the USA. They seem to do a great deal more demonstration of effectiveness to the user to encourage them to engage in the training. Their numbers of participants and members of their local organizations are increasing in number much greater than what we have seen in the USA in the last decade. Their numbers are growing, ours are declining. I would like to hear more about their success stories. What is working for them? Could it be included in our new design?

    in reply to: Sliding scale for voting? #1941
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    I think that membership (through financial support)is the most effective way to structure voting rights. I agree with Brian that people will be more invested and interested in voting for issues that affect them. If someone joins WGI international and does not have an affiliate group to align with, they would fall under Mitchell’s group of “the rest of the world” and could connect with Mitchell for inclusion in decisions that would be important to them. I do not think that we want to block anyone from voting on WGI issues if they are paying members to any WGlasser organization.
    This criteria will demand data accuracy and fee schedules and methods of payment to be agreed upon by all Glasser organizations. This is not to say that one size fits all, but an agreed upon operational procedure will be established, published and followed.
    Again we are back to the discussion: what’s in it for them? I believe that we may need to be flexible with our published structures for the next 5 years or so, until the affiliates and regions around the world can be a little more organized, and we have more available services and opportunities for our members. This is a work in progress…and we are just beginning to establish new directions. For now, I think that the “dues paying member” is the criteria for voting rights.

    in reply to: The Degree Requirement #1939
    Nancy Herrick
    Participant

    I agree that our specific instruction and sharing does not require or necessitate a degree from a University setting. At the time we installed this requirement, the institute was attempting to have a more professional persona in the educational and professional communities. We believed that the degree would provide more credibility to our institute training.
    With all the internet learning and information sharing, most people today are not concerned with degree qualifications. I think it gives credibility to authors, and if our instructors choose to publish, then it could be beneficial to them to have a degree from a higher educational institution. Before we eliminate this criteria, can we look at the “evidenced-based research” requirements or expectations and take these expectations into consideration for our instructors and facilitators.
    I am all for eliminating hurdles for people to jump in order to be considered “faculty”. We may even decide to change the terms we use: faculty; instructor; senior instructor; facilitator etc. These terms worked for us in the 20th century before the digital/electronic wave swamped us. Maybe it is time to look at these requirements again and eliminate hurdles as best we can.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
Translate ยป