How we recorded the meeting

Each session had a note-taker, and Paul Bennett sewed the notes together and added text in square brackets. Note-taking was comprehensive, but as many things were covered twice, the order of these notes is not at all the same as the order of the meeting. Because of this, notes from different sessions have been run together under their subject headings.

Participants

Canberra: Elizabeth Murphy, Loma Snooks

New South Wales: Heather Jamieson

Queensland: Paul Bennett

South Australia: Karen Disney, Celia Jellett

Tasmania: Janice Bird

Victoria: Elizabeth Flann, Beryl Hill, Susan Keogh, Janet Mackenzie, Renée Otmar

WA: Janet Blagg

Observer: Robin Bennett, chair, IPEd Accreditation Board

General notes and agenda (Paul Bennett, Queensland)

The meeting was remarkable because just about everybody was of the same mind. No points caused serious argument. When there were different views, both sides were gracious in giving ground. The feared government-committee-type atmosphere didn't happen. It was even easy to make up the wording for editing competence, the accreditation certificate, and the name of the assessors forum. This all made the meeting refreshing and easy to handle, and nothing had to be held over.

There was no fixed agenda because we wanted to see what the assessors came up with. These were the essential points that came up and were agreed on:

• How will the portfolio idea work in practice? Is it enough, or too much, on its own?
• Do we need a practical, base-level competence test first?
• What are the problems in reviewing applications?
• Standards (revised): what do we agree on?
• Can we define editing competence?
• Guidelines for assesors
• Write draft recommendations for standards, documentation, training new assessors.

Introduction (notes by Renée Otmar, Victoria)

On the first weekend of December 2006, a group of 14 assessors (now known as the Assessors Forum) from across Australia gathered in Melbourne to formalise the requirements for editors who wish to be accredited by IPEd. Foremost in the minds of the assessors was the need to ensure that the requirements for accreditation would not be too onerous, time-consuming or costly – for applicants as well as for the assessors administering the accreditation scheme on behalf of IPEd. It soon became apparent to the assessors that the existing framework of requirements would be just that.

The Accreditation Board will be pleased to learn that the Assessors Forum was able to develop recommendations for a creative and fair solution, with several benefits for applicants and administrators of the accreditation scheme. While it is expected that the revised framework for the accreditation scheme will be well received by editors generally, communication will be vital in ensuring its uptake. It is important, therefore, that the Accreditation Board, IPEd and the societies of editors use their various forums to explain the revised requirements for accreditation (and the associated benefits) to members and other editors around the country.

Summary of an initial, free-ranging discussion (notes by Paul Bennett)

What do we think about the process of  portfolio assessment? How can we come up with a system that can be seen to be fair?

How do we define a borderline case? Good and bad applications should be obvious, and borderline cases can be checked by another assessment, but it's very time-consuming. Borderline means different things to different people, but there's a panel of three, so there shouldn't be a problem in stating that a case is borderline.

Assessing must be very transparent.

How do we ensure consistency?

We need a detailed checklist.

Assessors doing a test-run by editing a piece themselves, then comparing the applicant's attempt, takes far too long, as proved by Loma Snooks, who said she had done a test run.

If assessors receive a submission, they must also get a detailed brief so they know what they're marking on.

Reduce amount of submission to, say, 20 pages.

Remote applications can be done by a carefully timed email.

Why, on a portfolio, must you satisfy every standard? It's unfair on specialists.

We don't dismiss the portfolio but it's clearly inadequate, so we must enhance it and/or simplify it. All agreed wholeheartedly that we need a copyediting test first, then build on that, just as a basic drivers licence can be added to. You can't have just one level.

Why didn't we have a test to start with? Answer: Because of security of information, labour, rural and remote problems, and possible alienation of senior editors.

Detailed responses of the Assessors Forum to judging portfolios (Notes by Heather Jamieson, NSW; Karen Disney, SA; and Paul Bennett, Queensland)

Summary

The delegates felt that assessment by portfolio involves complex issues of transparency, consistency, procedure and costs, all of which need further consideration and resolution. It was pointed out that significant time is involved in the assessment of portfolios of up to 100 pages (the length which has been proposed), which is likely to result in an unpredictable and potentially heavy workload for the current pool of assessors. It would also mean that application costs would need to be high if the assessors were to be adequately paid (and this was agreed to be essential). These discussions are set out in more detail later.

The delegates suggested that accreditation by portfolio submission is a goal that needs to be moved towards more slowly, and proposed an initial basic accreditation step involving a nationwide test of copyediting and other essential skills. This would be followed later by accreditation of advanced editing skills by portfolio submission. This discussion of the proposed test is also detailed below.

Problems foreseen with portfolio assessment

It was unanimously agreed that the problems of assessing portfolios were many:

• Very detailed assessment criteria need to be developed to ensure consistency in marking a wide variety of materials.
• Problems of transparency.
• The time and cost for panel meetings and discussions of borderline applications. (The current proposal is that they are sent to a panel of three assessors.)
• Probable underestimation of workload involved in assessing portfolios. It was calculated that a 100-page portfolio (as proposed) would take one assessor 8 to 10 hours, and this would be greatly increased for borderline cases because three additional assessors may need to be involved, but may be closer to 15-20 per application, multiplied by a rate up to $100 per hour. Who pays this $2000?
• Applicants' time preparing a portfolio.
• Logjam with the first flush of applications.
• High cost of assessing portfolios, given adequate payment of those doing the assessing.
• Meaningful assessment of the editing portfolio would require the brief to be provided, or an indication of the implied brief if no formal brief was available.
• Some will be more complicated than others, so we could easily fall into the trap of comparing apples with pears.
• Confidentiality issues may be very difficult to overcome.
• Guidelines need to be developed about editing projects which would be unsuitable for submission.
• It is probable that applicants will need to submit more than one editing project in their portfolio in order to demonstrate a range of skills.
• Too many standards for some, and not enough for others.
• Can incomplete applications be sent back?
• Page limit should be far less than 100 in total; suggest 30-50 including prelims and sample text.
• Should have at least two levels of competence: copyediting and "Fellow" (working title).

How do we feel about a practical, base-level editing test?

The proposal supported by most participants was to devise a test made up of a manuscript sample and short-answer questions. The test is not to replace the portfolio, but to prepare people for it later. We'll reconsider how the portfolio should be done when we have more experience of the basic accreditation we have proposed. The whole accreditation idea can only be improved by using a stepped system.

Janet Mackenzie reported that a test had been ruled out by the Working Group because of  problems expected with security, labour, remote sites and possible alienation of senior editors. The participants felt that this was not a good enough reason to stop discussing something most of us think we need.

The base-level accreditation test would test basic copyediting and other essential skills such as project definition and ability to identify defamation, permission and copyright issues. The test could be run simultaneously in various centres and online. Anxiety about the test could be allayed by putting a sample version, with answers, on the website.

Problems foreseen with a base-level accreditation test

• Challenge of coordinating the test across the different sites.
• Cost of supervising the test.
• Need to provide remote and regional editors with equity of access.
• Possible alienation of senior editors.
• Concern about departing from the proposed model and overturning an earlier decision which the state societies had voted in favour of.
• Extra work involved in devising the test, though it was thought that this would be balanced by less work in marking portfolios, and greater objectivity.
• Would membership object to this about-face?
• Will subject matter disadvantage some?
• There's a need to set criteria and assign weighting to sections of Standards.

Benefits of a base-level accreditation test

• Simple objectives: screen-out hobbyists, earn higher wage, raise profile.
• Simpler to administer, held on same day around the country, with invigilators.
• Easier for applicants - less preparation time.
• Test will help the public find a competent editor (employers mostly know already).
• Test will be less work all round and will be seen as fair and consistent.

Technical and admin notes for a base-level accreditation test

The accreditation test will test Standards D, E and A3 in detail, and A, B and C in less detail. Questions and sections are weighted. The candidate can use reference books.

Other features:

• Charge more for non-members to be accredited.
• We need a pre-test workshop for members.
• Growth areas for ediotrs are in information design, corporate, government, web; not books.
• Tasks: create test, book venue, choose invigilators, mark tests.
• Test should consist of copyediting passage covering Standards Parts C and D, plus scenarios with questions that will cover editorial assessment, legal and ethical issues, and basic project management; should take about three hours.
• Test should be administered twice in the first year, six months apart, then annually.
• It must have:
• - an MS test of practical editing
• - a Q & A section for defamation and other legal things
• - scenarios depicting problems to be solved (such as what to do with an essential picture that's too low in quality).
• - heading and other hierarchies
• - grammar tests: "what's wrong with this sentence?"
• - a bibliography
• - credible and doubtful references
• - snares, such as parameter, cohort, crescendo
• - either a fixed passmark or a mark in comparison with the general trend
• - (if testsetters have the time) a choice of three tests; candidates pick their favourite
• - something to test whether candidate knows how to ask questions of author
• - a time limit of about three hours
• - supervision at (various ideas) such as publishers, school.

(See also "More on what the test should include" on p. 7)

Jobs to do to prepare for a two-tiered accreditation process (notes by Karen Disney)

• To end of January: contribute items to wiki for dummy test - all assessors.
• Create dummy test and marking system -­ Susan Keogh, Elizabeth Flann, Elizabeth Murphy; Loma Snooks. (Susan Keogh and Elizabeth Flann are to prepare the dummy test and marking system and then pass it across to Loma and Elizabeth Murphy for comment and possible additional input. This will probably have to be done by the end of February.)
• March-April: discuss and refine test and marking system; refine and distribute questionnaire - all assessors. (For more on the questionnaire, see "Questionnaire" on p. 9)
• End of April: post test on website before national conference - TBA
• May-end September: set and approve actual test; collate answers to questionnaire; review costs, prepare budget and set application fee; arrange with societies to hold test - all assessors.
• Objective is to accredit first batch of editors by end of 2007.
• Portfolio will be used for advanced level; we should be able to simplify this process; number of years of experience should count.
• Is there a need to renew accreditation once received? Will be awarded in a particular year, so can address through training; alternatively, show proof every five years of editing involvement and professional development.

Which of the Australian Standards for Editing Practice would be measurable in the accreditation practical test?
(Notes by Janice Bird, Tasmania)

It was agreed to refer to the existing Australian Standards for Editing Practice (the Standards) as the revised version is a draft that has not been agreed upon. The following is in order of Standard numbers, not in order of discussion.

Std	How to test/type of question/comments
A1: Overview	Questions based on a given scenario.
A3: Legal and ethical	Important to include. Candidates would be expected to show that they recognised potential problems (plagiarism, defamation, etc.) and the need to advise the client to consider these and get professional advice; they would not need to demonstrate a detailed knowledge of all the legal implications.
B2: Project documentation
B2.1	(f) A scenario could give some indication. What points would you bring to the attention of the designer? Prepare a design brief (considered too large a task).
B2.2	Provide a deficient brief and ask for responses (what else would the editor need to ask, what in the brief is inappropriate?).
B2.4	Sample of bad or inadequate contract: would you sign/how would you improve it? Maybe could combine the brief/project definition, agreement, contract issues in one question. Arrangements for/confirmation of the editor's role on the job and the scope of the work.
B3: Monitoring	Ask candidates to comment on an unrealistic hypothetical production schedule.
B3.1 and 3.2	Maybe outside the scope of this test? 3.2 could be tested in a scenario: who would you go to if ... (major problem, for example, coming across the words to be completed)?
B3.3	Version control is important.
C: Substance and structure
C1.1 and 1.2	Questions about the sample text, whether the level of writing is appropriate for the audience. (Combine with D2.2)
C1.4	Looking at sample text, which points would you draw to the attention of the marketing department? Tests understanding of the crucial points in the text. (Less weighting on this.) Some thought it too hard to ask for a blurb from a small sample.
C2: Techniques	Cross-references, headings etc. - also covered in Standards  D and E. Illustrations, tables, are they appropriate? Perhaps this Standard is more appropriate for the portfolio level.
C2.1	What would you need to discuss with the author/client, and why?
C2.8 and 2.9	Could be tested.
D1-5 Language and illustrations	Sample text to edit.
D4.2	Alternative spelling; introduce inconsistency into the sample text (eg traveler and traveller) and see what the candidate does about it.
D6: Illustrations and tables	Double entry in table, illustration incorrectly captioned, map with incorrect labelling/scale. Not all such issues would be covered in every test.

(Table continues)

E: Integrity	Could be tested.
E1.1	Jumbled sequence to reorganise; brochure with chunk of text missing.
E1.2	Yes, can test.
E1.3	Questions about the difference between how information is shown on screen and on page.
E2	Ask candidate to create a style sheet from the sample text they have been asked to edit.
E2.1	Prescribe a style (give particulars) and candidate is to ensure it's applied in the sample text. Or introduce inconsistencies to prompt the comment that choice of style would need to be considered.
E3: Index	All standards could be tested except E3.7 - conformity of style. The sample to be edited could be an index, or the need for an index might be prompted by the sample text. Test might include an index one year, a bibliography another year (not all in each test).
E4, E5	Could be tested in a scenario.

More on what the test should include

It was agreed that the test should include some awareness of the need for a defined brief, project management, legal and ethical issues (the editor could be a danger if ignorant of the latter) as well as copyediting. Standards D and E and A3 should comprise the main part of the test, and questions from other areas (Standards A, B and C) would be included to check a basic grasp of those issues.

It would be acceptable to use reference materials such as a dictionary and the Style Manual during the test.

Janet Blagg suggested having separate questions to cater for those who edit hardcopy more than using electronic means. It was agreed that there could be alternative questions to choose from, according to area of experience (such as print or screen-based, scientific vs children's books).

Heather Jamieson suggested the main questions would test core skills but candidates could earn bonus points if they commented on other aspects. She volunteered to find out about possible specialists to consult regarding assessing and marking.

Some topics would not be covered in every test; for example, there might be one question relating to Standard B each year.

Marking

Renée Otmar emphasised the importance of all assessors being briefed and trained in the assessment process.

A marking system was discussed. Consider having discretionary marks for initiative, losing marks for missing things. Susan Keogh suggested weighting marks, more on copyediting than project management. It was agreed that this would need to be decided later. Elizabeth Murphy suggested that candidates should be required to get some right answers in each section, regardless of weighting and passmark, to show some understanding of all the issues covered in the test. The process would be to draw up a test then consider weighting/marking system and passmark, with professional advice.

It was decided that there would be no grading system, just pass or fail, competent or not. Applicants would be told that they had passed or failed, and assessors would need to prepare a report on failed papers, which would be provided to the candidate upon request.

It was noted that assessors could not stop marking when a paper reached the passmark, in case there were major errors later in the paper that required deduction of points, and also because all candidates should be treated equally. Preparing a report on failed tests would take perhaps as long as marking the paper itself. It was estimated that an hour may be needed to mark a three-hour paper.

The answers would be put on the website for candidates to view.

It might be worth getting professional advice on how to handle the failures.

There was some discussion about rewording funding applications to CAL to present the feedback process, or provision of dummy tests to prospective candidates, as a form of training.

Some reasons for instigating a test were reiterated: the proposed portfolio system was unmanageable, too time-consuming and expensive at present; a test would cost less per person and would measure basic competence rather than advanced skills; a portfolio system would be devised later for a higher level of accreditation, but passing the basic test would be a requirement, thus weeding out those who were clearly ineligible.

How should the test be conducted?

Most people agreed that it could be conducted once a year on the same day in every capital city. (Later in the meeting, it was suggested that tests at six-monthly intervals would be more helpful to candidates, especially in the early stages when there would be a large number wishing to apply). The possibility of email or web-based testing was discussed, considering people in remote areas or those who had difficulty reaching a venue for other reasons. This raised questions about supervision and cheating (although the same lack of control would apply in accepting portfolios). There must be other organisations who conduct such tests, from whom we can learn.

Writers centres or local presses might be appropriate venues for the test.

Renée Otmar suggested contacting members to ask for expressions of interest in sitting the test within the next six months (circulating a dummy test first would be helpful), stating that we are not looking for a commitment, just to get an idea of numbers and locations for planning purposes. We could also ask for comments and postcodes.

Finances and budget (notes by Karen Disney, SA)

• Assessors should be paid professional rate, $100 per hour; fee to be set accordingly, say $250 or $300.
• Presentation of certificates: IPEd to post to individual; names to go in state newsletters at the time of awarding the accreditation (if individual consents).
• Payment of assessors: ask three editors to mark trial test, work out rate per paper. Include time for reviewing borderline cases with panel. Double marking required for low-mark papers, failures.
• All failures require assessors to write a report.
• Grounds for appeal to be spelled out: penalty appeal cost $25 or is it covered by initial application fee?
• Put test on website with answers afterwards - will reduce appeals.

Income

Application fees

Administration fee for appeals? Fees for reports on failures?

Expenses

Assessors' time and costs* - setting tests

Assessors' time and costs* - marking tests

Assessors' travel and accommodation

Hire of venues

Administration: handling, postage, photocopying, printing

Invigilators (to supervise tests, possibly)

Certificate design and printing

Subsidies for remote applicants

*based on $100/h

How to screen new assessors (notes by Paul and Karen)

An accredited person is not necessarily a good assessor. Where are future assessors coming from? Whatever happens, they must:

• have passed the basic accreditation test
• have passed the portfolio advanced test
• been on a committee or something like it
• worked in-house and freelance if possible
• have n years experience
• be well respected by their society members
• have demonstrated commitment to the trade.

For marking, accreditation tests are not as subjective as a portfolio, and they don't have names on them, so any assessor can mark any paper. There are plenty of advanced editors who could do this work.

We will need most of them in the first year. We can limit the number of tests to fit the number of assessors.

Assessors need training and guidelines for marking

As we're not doing portfolios to start with, we'll have more time and can do more tests than portfolios in a given time.

Let's just start with the material we have, and see what happens. To start with, we'll spread the tests evenly over the assessors we do have. As the tests have no names on them, the original marking can be done anywhere. We'll try to send them interstate but, as they are not named, it doesn't really matter if it stays in the home state. If there's an appeal, the Board can simply pass the test over to another state's assessor for a second marking.

We'll have to stay with the assessors we have until (a) we have new people who have passed the portfolio, and (b) societies nominate more "distinguished" editors, based on breadth and depth of industry experience, demonstrated commitment to profession, passed test, respected member of society (unanimous choice by committee).

We could hold an examiners' debriefing to check individual performance or cross-check with other assessors within the state.

Process for deregistering an assessor may be needed.

Questionnaire (notes by Karen Disney, SA)

A questionnaire on proposed revision to accreditation scheme should be emailed to members and/or placed in newsletters, and publicised at meetings.

Questionnaires can go out after conference, or in conference bags.

We must ask for postcode.

Name of new assessors' group and arrangements
(notes by Paul and Karen)

We all agreed that the name of our group is the Assessors Forum, and there's no s-pos.

It works on consensus.

It is subordinate to the Accreditation Board.

There's one rep (Renée Otmar), who goes to the Accreditation Board, and one secretary (Paul Bennett).

Share secretariat with IPEd, Accreditation Board.

We'll set up a forum on the website.

Accreditation certificate (notes by Paul Bennett)

We decided that the basic accreditation must have a name and wording we could all agree on now. We came up with the wording, pinned it up for over a day, and there were no changes. here it is:

Emblem Institute of Professional Editors Accreditation in Australian standards for editing practice This certifies that

Jim Pills

is an IPEd-accredited editor.

Communications (notes by Karen Disney, SA)

• Report verbally to committees - all assessors.
• Circulate minutes to IPEd, Accreditation Board, all assessors and societies - Paul Bennett.
• Prepare a newsletter article, circulate draft - Paul Bennett.
• Cover issue in February workshops.
• Expression of interest to go out in January?
• T-shirt slogan: I'm an assessor. Satisfy me.

Publicity

As soon as someone has been accredited, individual societies should publish the names in the newsletter, unless the person does not want that.

Editing competence (notes by Karen Disney, SA)

• Competence determined by accreditation test passmark.
• Title: IPEd-accredited editor = IPEd-A; IPEd Fellow, or Senior, or Advanced.
• Try to avoid terminology used in higher ed: registration, not qualification (examples: IPEd-registered editor, Licensed editor, Accredited editor).
• Competence defined as follows:

IPEd-accredited editors have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Accreditation Board that they have the knowledge and skills set out in the Australian Standards for Editing Practice.

[One wagette suggested that we should define it as "IPEd-accredited editors have fully satisfied the assessors."]

Draft revised editing standards (notes by Karen Disney, SA)

A note to the ASEP Revision Working Group was drafted by Susan Keogh and approved by all at the meeting.

Draft revised Standards (notes by Susan Keogh)

Many of the group had been unable to look at the draft revised Standards in depth before the session.

It was noted that the Standards had, as it were, been "repurposed": whereas the original Standards had been a statement of knowledge, the draft revision was more a checklist of tasks, with the aim of making the Standards easier to use.

While the societies were generally happy enough with the existing Standards, the review had been put in place because of a suggested time for reviewing when the original Standards were adopted (that is, after three years).

What had started as a review had become more a wholesale revision with the aim of making the Standards easier to use for the purposes of accreditation. This had generated a large number of detailed alterations that will need discussion and approval by all the societies.

What happens if the revised Standards are not approved? Delay in implementing accreditation based on the revised Standards.

Some of the alterations to the Standards included deleting the acknowledgements and the names of the original authors (ironically, this is a breach of the Standards); standard A2.2 had been deleted and the structure was less clear. There had been considerable "re-verbing". On the other hand, the revised draft was easier to read and understand, despite some grammatical glitches. It was also acknowledged that the sections dealing with how editors use technology could need considerable change.

It was felt that the need to deal in detail with the revisions was something that would now impede our progress on accreditation, given that it took three years to approve the existing Standards. If the accreditation test is to be up and running in 2007, we probably have to work with the original Standards. In addition, given that the Forum had already decided to move away from the portfolio system for initial accreditation to a test, it was felt that the admirable aim of revising the Standards to be compatible with accreditation was now less urgent. Like the idea of the portfolio itself, while revision of the Standards had been a good idea, it was not as practical as had been thought.

The Forum felt that the revision of the Standards at this stage is not something that was helpful to the implementation of accreditation.

Discussion moved on to whether it would possible to respond to the revised Standards as requested by the deadline and what points the response should cover.  It was felt that now it would be useful to revise the Standards in conjunction with refining the portfolio concept. A draft response was prepared by Susan, and it was approved and finalised for sending to the Revised Standards Working Group.