This
is listed first because it attracted, by a very large margin, more comment
than all the other consultation topics put together.
In
drawing conclusions, it needs to be noted that respondents were commenting on
the THDC as described in the THDC Document written by Sagewalker in February
2001. This document described
the THDC as it was at that time. The
THDC is evolving, and a February 2001 description may no longer portray it
accurately. With this caveat, the
consensus was as follows.
While the large majority of respondents
expressed appreciation for Sagewalker’s initiative, they also considered that
– before approval is given to the THDC – the THDC should be asked to address
the concerns noted in this report, in particular those noted below.
At the same time – in the light of the Philadelphia experience – it
appears reasonable and practical to allow the THDC some time to work out its own
ways to address these concerns. The
most important concerns related to the following areas:
The
following amplifies the above points.
Faculty
It
is highly desirable to find ways to expand the THDC faculty to avoid
over-dependence on a single helper, however experienced and gifted.
This opinion was virtually unanimous.
A minimum
faculty size of 3 is desirable for many reasons.
It is desirable to have at least 3 helpers involved in the evaluation of
trainees at different points in their journey.
These helpers need to be involved with the program sufficiently closely
and continuously to support evaluation and to provide an adequate container for
the program, particularly if individual trainees are each, as Carolyn pointed
out, doing individually different pieces of work in different locations.
An
expanded faculty has other advantages. It
helps to avoid overloading a single person, who may get sick, have an accident,
or have other obligations suddenly arise, such as family obligations.
It also helps to provide a stronger and more adequate container for the
program, including deep group work by the trainees as a group.
It helps to avoid problems associated with ‘dual relationships’ in
which a single helper has multiple roles, including teacher, leader,
administrator, helper, supervisor, evaluator.
It also helps to avoid difficulties
associated with the 'blind spots' that even the most experienced helpers may
have. Trainees can also benefit
from close experience of different helper styles.
Lastly, it offers a solution to the difficulty that, with a faculty of
one, the single faculty member is generally too overloaded to spend time in
dialog with other training programs.
At least
three ways were mentioned in which THDC might enlarge its faculty.
One way would be for THDC to add directly to its faculty.
There would be particular advantages in adding a senior helper training
program teacher/leader from one of the regions.
Another way would be some form of association with a region with an
established helper training program. A
third way would be for a small group of helper-trainers to come together to work
with and support small helper training programs, for example the THDC.
Of course, combinations of these approaches are also possible.
Minimum Requirements
Particularly
since the THDC model is likely to be replicated, it is highly desirable that the
THDC model be more fully described. The
fuller description would desirably include minimum standards and requirements,
for example faculty arrangements, entry requirements, requirements that meet
concerns for an adequate container for group work, requirements for an adequate
amount of group work, some minimum duration for the training of individual
trainees, and requirements corresponding to the apprenticeship requirements of
other regions.
The
consensus was that the requirements for THDC Model programs should be comparable
to those of existing helper training programs.
Three specific requirements of existing US programs are: (a) The
completion of a minimum of 3 years of Pathwork Transformation Program work as a
prerequisite for entry into helper training; (b) The completion of a minimum of
3 years of helper training; (c) An additional period of training of at least 1
year. In most programs this
additional period of training takes the form of supervised apprenticeship.
Group Work
It
is desirable that ways be found for the trainees of this program/model to do
sufficient deep group work together. This
implies that the group meet together for a greater amount of time than the 32
hours/year indicated in the THDC document.
Inter-Training Program Dialog and Cooperation
-
PHANA’s
present community consensus approach to helper training standards is
strongly endorsed.
-
An early next step with
respect to helper training standards would be for senior Pathwork helper
trainers to meet at some convenient time and place.
One
of the principal objectives of this meeting would be to reach consensus
concerning how far and how fast the various helper training programs wish to go
in the direction of inter-program cooperation and of harmonizing basic program
elements and standards.
Another
objective would be to seek ways to address basic issues relating to helper
training. Judith and Barbara
provided the following examples of these issues:
- What
needs to be included in a good helper training program?
- What
approaches and processes are most appropriate and helpful in evaluating a
person’s readiness to move through various stages of training and finally
to be recognized as a Pathwork Helper?
Two
further issues are:
- What
organizational arrangements are needed to channel cooperation between the
various training programs and to agree and maintain adequate and effective
helper training standards?
- If
the Pathwork community is to grow, more helpers are needed in areas of North
America and the world that
are remote from existing Pathwork centers and helper training programs.
It is manifestly not realistic to require that all would-be helpers
must travel to undertake lengthy and expensive training at existing training
programs.
This being the case, what are the minimum requirements for new helper
training programs in areas far from existing centers?
What assistance can be made available to help these new programs?
Since
these are complex topics it is unlikely that very detailed agreement can be
reached in a single meeting. The meeting might however agree on approaches
and processes designed to address the issues in more detail. Some work
might, for example, be delegated to suitable working groups who would then
report back at a future time.
There is value in having guidelines relating to new helper
training programs. However, the
present guideline needs to be reworked in the light of comments received.
-
The Barbara Brennan
School of Healing (BBSH) recently told Susan Thesenga that BBSH had discussed not
honoring Pathwork helpers as "therapists" for BBSH students
because Pathwork Helpership standards are so varied and uneven. This
is an indicator that, as Susan put it: “we need to get our act
together.”
-
PHANA
Council needs to proceed as quickly as possible with setting up PHANA.
-
Plans for setting up
PHANA include the creation and maintenance of a Register of Recognized
Pathwork Helpers, Apprentice Helpers, and Counselors [provisional name].
Adequate arrangements for updating the Register are needed, and these
arrangements should ensure that those listed in the Register continue to
merit their inclusion. This implies (it was suggested) more than
annual requirements for an individual to pay his/her annual dues and to
indicate his/her acceptance of membership conditions as these
evolve. Two additional desiderata are: (1) To ensure that members link
up with the wider Pathwork Helper/Counselor community, rather than
practicing in isolation; and (2) To ensure that members “keep up” in
their knowledge and practice of Pathwork Helpership/Counseling.
In
this context, it is desirable that there be regular events that help
practitioners link with the wider community and help them update their knowledge
and practice of Pathwork Helpership/Counseling.
Back
to Contents Listing
