This paper is for decision

In full agreement with the Psychoanalytic Education Committee we formulate our aim as stimulating the process of self-study and self-reflection on education in the IPA societies. In order to reach this aim we propose the following measures. They will have the consequence of increasing the profile of the Psychoanalytic Education Committee in the institutional structure of IPA: 

We recommend that there should be an established and meaningful presence of educational issues at the IPA Congresses. Starting with Vancouver, PEC should have a permanent panel (not limited to one) in the International Congresses, at a time of day and position within schedule which would invite attendance. 
PEC should be involved in planning the Congresses.

The change of training standards (Board decision to vary the Eitingon Model from 4/5 times a week to 3/ 5) stimulated anew world-wide discussion about different training models and ways of optimizing psychoanalytic education. In this situation an IPA Symposium on Training could be very useful or even necessary. This symposium could be related to underlying issues of different perspectives and philosophies on psychoanalytic education as well as the formation of an analytic identity. 
The details of such a symposium need to be worked out. PEC would be the main organizer but might then need more people or a special Organizing Committee. There is a wide spectrum of possible topics. 
The number of participants should be restricted. The question whether candidates should be admitted remains open. 
The weekend before the IPAC in Vancouver seems to be a suitable date for a first symposium. Its outcome will decide on the question whether it could become a standing conference.

The symposium is intended as a step towards a greater representation of training/formation in the IPA. Proposing the chair of PEC to have a permanent seat in the Board (without the right to vote) is another step in this direction. It would give greater institutional authority to the Psychoanalytic Education Committee.

Planning and structuring collegial mutual encounters was a central topic of discussion within the Task Force and also in Houston. It constitutes a main focus of our initiative to further self-reflection of institutes/societies and thereby to enhance the quality of psychoanalytic education. Discussing questions of training in a collegial atmosphere during encounters of two or three institutes creates an open space for reflection on training and learning from each other. Self-reflection within training centres is always aided by “another set of eyes.” In this mutual exchange of ideas and experiences, not only problems become more visible and can consequently be worked through, strengths and creative solutions can be transferred to each other and thereby enhance mutual learning by experience. 

Existing institutions and conferences can be used to organize these encounters. Institutes/societies should be encouraged to look for other ideas to meet. For the future one could envisage a culture of exchange processes between different societies without any regional limitations. This world-wide openness for exchange could especially attract gifted and creative potential candidates.
As to which topics could be most pertinent for these encounters a pre-formulated list would limit their creative potential. To discuss questions of practice of training seems, however, to be of utmost importance. Underlying issues of different theories, philosophies and histories of societies become visible in the daily practice of training. Mutual presentations of supervisory work should be a cornerstone of the meetings. Other aspects can be added. The following list might be useful:

a. What are the factors that you take into account to modify your curricula? When you do so, whose function is it? Who takes part in the modifications?
b. It would be interesting to know how each of us deal with supervisions, as there are different ways of evaluating these processes. Do supervisors meet as a group? How do you inform the candidates about their evaluations?
c. Do you have spaces in which you exchange ideas about training with other societies? If so, could you explain how you do it?
d. Is collegiality in your societies a subject of discussion? If so, how is it discussed?
e. Which is the underlying rationale of evaluation? 

A. Introduction

In April 2018 the IPA Board set up the 
TASK FORCE ON COLLEGIAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT (CQA) composed of members representing the three training models
with the mandate to develop proposals for a collegial system of quality assessment (the name for this to be subject to recommendation by the Task Force), which should provide a means for sharing best practise between societies including inter-regionally, which should engage with all the training models, and which should reassure the Board (and Candidates) of the quality standards being achieved.

In November 2018 a preliminary report had been submitted to the IPA Board. It has been thoroughly discussed during the Board meeting in Lisbon in January 2019. The Board authorized an extension of our mandate offering an opportunity to meet in person with the Psychoanalytic Education Committee (PEC). This meeting took place in Houston end of March 2019. The discussion there was very thorough and fruitful. It proved to be more a discussion in one group of experienced training analysts than an encounter between two different groups. Consequently, the following proposals are in basic concordance with all the participants of the Houston meeting.

B. History of the Task Force and Working with the Mandate
The change of training standards (Board decision to vary the Eitingon Model from 4/5 times a week to 3/ 5) created some turbulence in the IPA. Some European members were concerned about this change and report that they feel less inclined to stay in the IPA if it seems to them not to uphold high quality standards of training. Simultaneously, psychoanalytic training, worldwide is in flux. The abolition of BOPS in the APsaA and the foundation of the Exchange Visit Program (EVP) can be seen as signs of this development. Candidates all over the world report increasing difficulties in finding patients for analyses with frequent sessions in the week. This is due to in part Zeitgeist phenomena, but also to a worsening economic situation in many countries. The Board decision revived discussions about the frequency of sessions with which training analysis and training cases should be conducted. These discussions have the potential to stimulate useful consideration and debate.

Despite our different psychoanalytic traditions, the members of the Task Force are united in the conviction that launching an initiative to guarantee and enhance the quality of training in the IPA is necessary and indispensable. Such an initiative involves proposals that respect the different models of training, are collegial not hierarchical, and provide opportunities to enhance our own training standards. This initiative would imply discussing various external and internal resistances that could develop over time and impede the quality. The mandate of the Task Force being to consider the different models of training, it was not only important but also necessary that our group represented the whole array of the diversity in the IPA. Group members represent the Eitingon model, the French model and the Uruguayan model. We educated ourselves not just about the differences in the models but, importantly, about the rationale underwriting each model.

From this discussion emerged the idea that working collegially with each other is a central element to overcome the pervasive difficulties in the IPA. The term collegial became a central and unifying topic and approach in our discussion. So, as a group we succeeded in talking to each other collegially although we disagree on many issues.
From the very beginning of our work the polarity between assessment and enhancement was a central issue in our discussion. Assessment can easily suggest evaluation. Consequently, the idea that an institute or society is evaluated by any external agency met general rejection. On the other hand, the (oedipal) principle of triangulation can be interpreted to require need a third to promote change or amend an internal system, including educational organizations. Regardless of theory, all agreed that self-reflection within training centers is aided by “another set of eyes”. Therefore, the idea of a collegial assessment under the umbrella of interpersonal mutual encounters became a focus of our work.
In the process of these considerations we tried to find a new name for our initiative: Collegial Quality Enhancement of Training (CQET)

The members of the Task Force believe that the above proposals can be put into practice without great difficulties. Their outcome and consequences can be monitored and studied and moreover openly discussed in the international and regional psychoanalytic congresses as well as in the planned Symposium on Training. The envisaged collegial mutual encounters should be accompanied by studies and research. 

The Psychoanalytic Education Committee might become a containing structure for these processes. The mutual collegial encounters and the participation in the Symposium on Training are formulated as voluntary measures. Societies or Institutes that do not take part in these initiatives could be especially invited and supported to participate by the Psychoanalytic Education Committee. In this respect the proposed Symposium on Training could acquire a containing function as a world-wide meeting place for exchange about questions of training. 

Leopoldo Bleger
Beatriz de León de Bernardi
Paolo Fonda

Eike Hinze (Chair)
Marsha Levy-Warren
Sergio Lewkowicz
Maureen Murphy

Clara Rosa Nemas

Jonathan Sklar
Alan Sugarman