Minutes from the meeting of CLEAR’s NCIT Subcommittee
Town and Country Resort and Hotel
San Diego, California
Friday January 5, 2001

Co-chair Sandy Barton called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. Pacific Time and began by asking those present to introduce themselves. Once the introductions were complete the subcommittee proceeded to a review of the minutes from its previous meeting.

Review of minutes from September 13, 2000
On a motion from Jim Guffey, with a second from Bill Adomeit, the minutes were approved as presented.

Update on NCIT Programs
Adam Parfitt reported that since the committee last met, two Basic programs and one Specialized program was offered in Miami, one Basic and one Specialized program was offered in Raleigh, North Carolina, and one Basic program was offered in Sacramento, California. He added that CLEAR staff is currently following up on expressions of interest from Sacramento, Boston, Hawaii, Denver, and Winnipeg.

Instructor Evaluation Policy
Adam Parfitt reported that no comments had been received from instructors about the revised instructor evaluation policy. He stated that it appears to be working well, and that if any problems arise these will be brought to the attention of the chairs of the subcommittee.

Examination Item Bank
Rosemary McCool reported that the item writer workgroup has held several conference calls since the last committee meeting and is making good progress. She noted that she had participated in a conference call with Pam Brinegar, Lisa Hahn, Donna Mooney, and Adam Parfitt at which it was made clear that only minor revisions to the curriculum were envisaged. She added that future conference calls among the item writer work group are planned and that the suggested revisions to the Basic examination are nearly complete with replacement questions shortly to be field-tested. The subcommittee then expressed its appreciation of the work being done by the item writer work group.

Turning to the process by which a consultant would review the Basic and Specialized curricula, it was agreed that the suggested process (see attached) would be followed. Ken Bishop agreed to expand on the current points, and to return this to CLEAR staff within one month. The subcommittee agreed that responses to the Request for Proposals (RFP) would be reviewed by the committee co-chairs, who will make a recommendation to CLEAR’s Board of Directors.

Ken Bishop stated that he feels the most important task a consultant could carry out will be to review the way the program is presented. He suggested additional case studies be developed and attempts be made to make the program as interactive as possible. Turning to the testing process for the Basic program, he asked whether this could be considered a certification examination. Jim Guffey explained the background of the development of the program and the examination. Pam Brinegar added that the NCIT is a certification program with an examination as a constituent part of the process. She added that CLEAR’s requirements for certification are the successful completion of the examination, attendance at the training and one year of experience in the regulatory field. Furthermore, it was confirmed that the certification is based on mastery of the material presented during the training as opposed to providing an indication of competence as a regulatory investigator/inspector.

Jim Guffey then reported to members of the subcommittee about the work he had undertaken with the Association of Real Estate License Law Officials (ARELLO) in discussing potential collaboration with regards to training. The subcommittee agreed that discussions with ARELLO and other organizations were welcome and agreed to send it as an information item to CLEAR’s Board of Directors.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Pacific Time.

Respectfully Submitted,

Adam Parfitt

1. Identification of the typical student population
2. Complete at least a basic job task/practice analysis of that population
3. Determine entry level, basic and advanced tasks
4. Complete a survey of past students to ascertain the usefulness of the curriculum, and examine the retention level for six months, one year, and two years (accomplished by written survey, interviews and selective retesting)
5. Ascertain what the past students would like to see added/deleted
6. Using the above, develop learning and behavioral objectives
7. Determine a methodology of teaching those objectives (pure Socratic, outcome based, other)
8. Review existing, and develop additional, lesson plans
9. Develop a competency measurement (examination, practical, demonstrative)
10. Develop teaching aids (overheads, PowerPoint, handouts, props etc.)