|
On this page, we have collected a number of writings about the Psychoanalytic Consortium that may be of interest to those who want to learn more about the arguments for and against the adoption of national standards for the education of psychoanalytic practitioners. See below for background information on the Psychoanalytic Consortium.
Background of the Debate over “National Standards” for Psychoanalytic Education History During the 1980s, there were rumblings within the federal Department of Education about the need to establish accreditation standards for psychoanalytic institutes. Much to the surprise and consternation of other psychoanalytic organizations, a group called the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis (NAAP) made a bid to have its standards accepted by the Department of Education as the standards for institute education. The NAAP is a group of psychoanalytic practitioners whose affiliated institutes do not require candidates to have a graduate degree in a health-care profession before undertaking psychoanalytic training. It has, for some years, promoted the idea that psychoanalysis should be considered a separate profession, independent of psychology, psychiatry, or social work. Toward the end of establishing psychoanalysis as a separate discipline, the NAAP has worked not only to establish accreditation standards for psychoanalytic institutes, but to establish state licensure for individual psychoanalysts. At this point, Vermont is the only state that licenses psychoanalysts, but similar laws are under consideration in New York and New Jersey. Under such laws, an individual must be specifically licensed by the state to practice psychoanalysis (current law in most states licenses psychologists, physicians, and social workers, but does not concern itself with who calls him- or herself a psychoanalyst). In
1993 the Psychoanalytic Consortium was formed to counter the efforts of the NAAP.
It comprises four professional organizations: (1) the Division of Psychoanalysis
of the American Psychological Association; (2) the American Psychoanalytic
Association: (3) the American Academy of Psychoanalysis; and (4) the National
Membership Committee on Psychoanalysis The Consortium was formed with the idea that, if the major psychoanalytic organizations did not join together to come up with such standards, standards decided upon by the NAAP (or one organizational member of the Consortium, acting alone) would be accepted by the federal regulators and all institutes would be subject to standards in the establishment of which they had had no say. The Standards After years of negotiations among the psychoanalytic professional organizations that make up the Psychoanalytic Consortium, a set of “national standards for psychoanalytic education” was recently approved by these organizations. (See above for a link to these standards.) The standards outlined in the Consortium's proposal are comprehensive: the selection of candidates (e.g., institutes must hold at least two interviews, and in at least one of those interviews, the applicant must present clinical material; candidates must hold a "mental health degree leading to certification or licensing in a mental health profession" and should have "a basic awareness of organic mental pathology and pharmacological regimens" as well as diagnosis and psychodynamics), practice of psychoanalysis, psychoanalysis of candidates, educational philosophy (an "open critical approach" and an atmosphere of respect are mandated), curriculum, supervision, evaluation of candidates, record-keeping, ethics, faculty development, and site visits, among other things, are addressed. Under the proposed standards, educational programs would be accredited on the basis of standards decided upon by the Consortium, but each institute would also be required to meet the standards of its host professional organization. No provision is made for persons who choose to pursue an education in psychoanalysis independent of institute training.What’s Next The Consortium plans to submit its completed standards to the Council for Higher Education, a quasi-governmental organization that credentials national accrediting bodies for the professions.
In June 2001
the American Psychoanalytic Association became the last group within the
Consortium to ratify the Standards. The
Consortium then sponsored the incorporation of the Accreditation Council for
Psychoanalytic Education (ACPE). Once
established, the ACPE is intended to operate separately and independently of the
Consortium, to write its own bylaws, and to begin the process of accrediting
psychoanalytic institutes. At
some point, it will apply to the federal Department of Education for recognition
as the external accrediting body for psychoanalytic education. It is likely
that these standards will determine not only which institutes will be
“accredited,” but future state rules for the licensure of psychoanalysts,
grant monies for psychoanalytic education, treatment, and research, and
insurance benefits. There has been
much controversy both within and among the various psychoanalytic organizations
about the adoption of these standards. Organizations not included in the
Consortium have proposed quite different standards, and some practitioners,
including many members of the Academy, oppose the passage of any set of
“national standards” for a variety of reasons. |
in Clinical Social Work. The
organizations that make up the Consortium oppose the accreditation standards
proposed by the NAAP because they believe that divorcing psychoanalysis from the
health-care professions would lower standards (essentially turning
psychoanalytic institutes into master's programs rather than post-doctoral ones)
and damage the reputation of psychoanalysis in the public mind.