Comments regarding ERO #019…

Comments regarding ERO #019-6433
1.1 – I support candidates utilizing digital copies of the building code if they choose.
1.2 – It has the potential to disadvantage those not technically inclined but there is opportunity for this to be rectified.
1.3 Exams should be less about speed and more about making correct decisions. Digital or paper based code users should be afforded as much time as necessary to complete the exam. Some Exam questions are very complex and if asked to make similar types of decisions in real world situations, you would never provide the answer without thoroughly researching your response. I think time should be less of a factor.
2.1 – I strongly believe that the exams are too time constricted. Anything the ministry can do to alleviate the fact that many candidates are forced to guess answers or leave questions unanswered simply because time is running out will be a benefit. Real world decision making does not work this way. Since the exam formulation was contracted out, the questions became far more difficult, complex and convoluted.
2.2 – As a second career-building official, I can attest that speed reading is not an easy thing to do and time is definitely a factor for those of us that are not fresh out of university. I hear from many others in the profession that time and question complexity is a real problem. I also hear this from much younger recent university graduates as well. More time, less questions or re worked questions that test knowledge without tricking or bogging you down is what should be the goal.
3.1 – Allowing self study is not the issue. While I have taken the courses for every exam I have written, I don’t feel that self study is currently any less beneficial than taking the course. The exam time allotment and format are the main problem.
3.2 - Self study allows candidates who have other life commitments such as work, family and financial obligations, that make it difficult to travel and attend training courses the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge the same way as a candidate who attended a course, by writing the exam. While there is benefit to having others in a class to have discussions, the current training courses are really structured self study anyway. By making a course mandatory, it may be another hurdle or deterrent for some persons wanting to enter the profession.
4.1 – Exemptions have the potential to a positive step however this takes us away from the level playing field that currently exists. Currently everyone who is a building practitioner has to pass the same exams. I don’t see the current process an issue.
4.2. – If the ministry adopts the exemption approach then there needs to be regard for those currently qualified working practitioners so that they are not forced out of the profession when a “new” method of determining ones qualifications is put in place. Experience on the job should be highly valued.
4.3 – Self governing organizations can have something to offer however those that currently don’t belong to these organizations may not find it attainable to now make the transition as they impose additional requirements over and above provincial requirements. New comers to the industry might benefit more than experienced practitioners. This attempt to get more practitioners may in fact make it more difficult for those wishing to enter the profession. Working practitioners in small building departments are busy keeping up on the duties they are hired to do and time away is difficult.

5.1- The current exam program is not the big deterrent and by breaking the sections of the code into individual categories is a good way to allow a candidate to gradually acquire the knowledge and work in the profession while acquiring qualifications. An exam that is too broad scoped may just make it more difficult for new candidates to pass. There is a system now that allows some doubling up on qualifications and that seems to work well. The big issue with the current testing and certification to increase the number a persons in the industry to deal with demand for construction is the exam format. The common theme is too little time allowed for exam questions. Questions are often worded to trick or throw off the candidates or simply just send them all over the code materials with not enough time to properly evaluate and consider the question before having to answer.
5.2 – The prior Ministry exams were more about locating the correct code references to make proper decisions. The current exams seem to be designed to trick or bog candidates down with lengthy and complex questions while the time to do the research has not been adjusted to recognize the added difficulty. Most of a building practitioner’s job is accomplished by taking the required amount of time to thoroughly review the codes to determine the best possible interpretation. In real life this can take far more than a couple of minutes and often times involves interpretation and in many cases, there may be some consultation required with colleagues or other industry experts to make a determination. The current method of testing candidates does not allow for the time necessary for a candidate to ensure they are choosing the right answer. The fix is simple, allow more time and modify exam questions to be more straightforward and less convoluted. Current exam questions can ramble on and take too much time to thoroughly understand what the question is, let alone find the answer.
6.1 – Constant learning is key to being a good building practitioner. Forcing existing practitioners to re test is much too onerous and not necessary. This would cause many to leave the industry and would be detrimental in attracting new comers to the job. Small rural departments have limited resources and high workloads. Time away from the job for many of us in the small departments is difficult while still keeping up to the day to day duties. Demonstrating that you have attended information and training sessions that review changes to codes and other building related related topics should be sufficient.
6.2. – I strongly disagree that testing should be required for keeping your certifications. Code change updating for practitioners can be accomplished by online or in person training sessions that identify the changes. Once a practitioner attends the training they receive credit for this. Making testing mandatory after certification is not consistent with other professional designations or trades to keep licenses or certifications. The stress and psychological impact for a qualified practitioner facing a pass the test or lose their job scenario can be a lot to deal with. Some people are good at tests and others are not. Mandatory review of code changes should be sufficient to renew qualifications.
6.3. The ministry should develop online tutorials and sessions to track individual participation so a practitioner can renew certification once completed.