Tag: education

In March, 2018 I was advised that the BCSPCA was moving forward with an AnimalKind accreditation scheme for dog training businesses. I participated in the Dog Training Consultation process, which was fairly straightforward. Basically, the process was meant to get a feel for current practices in the profession.

In July, 2-18, the AnimalKind BCSPCA Accredited Dog Training Standards pilot was circulated, inviting feedback. I have been studying this document, highlighting sections that made me cheer, but also other areas that seemed vague or questionable. As the deadline for feedback approaches, it’s time to transfer some of my notes in the margins.

Warning: this is long, a bit of a jumble, and may only make sense to someone who is familiar with the AnimalKind pilot — which can be found here if you wish to become familiar!

Long Overdue

First of all, I think this is an essential and long overdue program. I actually had never envisioned the BCSPCA taking on this challenge, but given the AnimalKind partnership with University of British Columbia it is an obvious fit.

The BCSPCA has made its position clear for some time now — that the organization supports force-free humane training methods based on the science of how animals learn. They are clear in their position that training methods or equipment that cause anxiety, fear, distress, pain or injury, are not acceptable.

From my experience the general public has not taken notice of these position statements. However, I believe a set of standards and accreditation process will attract attention. A dog guardian might hesitate to seek training services from a business that isn’t certified. It is a step in the right direction.

Having said that, I do have questions and suggestions. Of course I do! 🙂

The process

The accreditation review process is summarized in the document, but the actual application process has been left out.

It needs to be clear that accreditation is initiated by the business, and not by the BCSPCA. In other words, a dog training business should not be put in a position to be “audited” unless they initiate it themselves. This may seem obvious, but possibly not to everyone.

In addition, an auditing process suggests that the incumbent might not be continuing to meet the standards. The reasons for undergoing an annual re-accreditation audit need to be made explicit. Is it because the business was reported? Is it routine? Random? The wording currently suggests that goal is for the AnimalKind program to recover operating costs.

What are we signing off on that we haven’t already?

The emphasis in the pilot document is on pledging to the use of rewards-based, evidence-based training methods.

I have already signed off on the principles of progressive reinforcement training through the CBATI Certification process  (Not on the pathway list – I address this under Standard 5)

I am also a professional member of the Pet Professional Guild, which requires adherence to a strict code of conduct and professional ethics.

Likewise, other programs listed in the document have a code of conduct. In fact, IAABC, APDT, and CCPDT have joined forces to implement a unified code of ethics.

The certifications pathway requires membership in one of these organizations at time of application, and I assume continued membership (although that is not stated). If this is the case, will a (fee-based) auditing process be redundant? Or could it serve a wide purpose by partnering with these organizations to ensure professional dog trainers are meeting these requirements?

Standard 1: Humane methods that are rewards-based and evidence-based are used to train dogs. 

This entire section is really clear nice and succinct.

Standard 2, Training methods, devices or tools that cause pain, injury, anxiety, fear or distress to the dog are not used.

This section is very thorough and, in my view, very easy to comply with. I appreciate that actual prohibited methods and tools are listed. There is no guessing here! However, there are two notes in the margins for me:

1. The phrasing of 2.2: “Use, sale or advertising of the following training methods, devices or tools is prohibited” might be better with the word recommending included. I’m sure it’s implied, but there is a fuzzy line between using certain methods and tools while actively working with a guardian and offering advice to someone you are not actively working with.
2. There may be transport or handling situations where safety requires the use of a slip lead.

Standard 3: Business models align with a commitment to protect dog welfare

Some of the details in this section are no doubt good practice but they are new to me. For example: “…must identify a veterinary care provider that is accessible during training hours…”

I had to take several passes through the possible scenarios, such as concurrent operations of businesses. Naturally I think about my own context in these scenarios. For example, I’m on the board of a non-profit that is dog-related. According to this document my involvement as an AnimalKind accredited business requires that the non-profit organization must also be AnimalKind accredited. I wonder if this is the case.

The section on referrals concerns me. According to the standard 3.5, it is prohibited to refer to dog training businesses that use methods, devices or tools that do not meet AnimalKind Standards. It’s not always possible to know what goes on in another business. And furthermore, what are the repercussions of making a mistake?

Standard 4: Ethical and legal business practices are followed

4.1 A valid business license must be held. What happens if you operate out of a non-municipal area?

4.4 Must operate in compliance with city bylaws. Again, what if you operate outside of a city (non-municipal) area?

4.6 All paid and unpaid employees…must be trained on risk management and safe management of dogs. This seems like a very light standard. What does “trained” look like?

4.7 e) Must maintain and retain for 3 years record that describe …relevant health history. I assume asking the question “Are there any health concerns I should know about?” would suffice?

4.8 d) Records for each training session must describe exceptions to training. What does the term “exceptions” means in this context? The examples given are “dog bit someone”. Does it mean anything that didn’t go as planned? This needs to be made explicit.

Record keeping is important, but the requirements are rather unusual. Each training record will have lesson plans “attached”. In addition, homework and exceptions (that word again) must be documented. It leaves me feeling like I need an office assistant, a new printer, and for sure a very large filing cabinet. 🙂 I think this section can be simplified and also reflect more modern (digital) administrative practices.

Standard 5: Trainers are qualified in humane training that is rewards-based and evidence-based

This is the standard that will no doubt receive the most attention and feedback. Clearly a lot of effort has gone into reviewing popular dog educational programs and certification examinations, and finding ways to  accommodate those who have had their knowledge assessed but not skills.

The process of becoming a dog trainer is something I think about a lot. I have considerable experience at the college and university level with curriculum development, accreditation, admissions, as well as transfer credit articulation and prior learning assessment. More recently I worked with members of the Pet Professional Guild’s Education Committee to develop criteria for the Canine Training Technician certification.

In an earlier article, I concluded that there should be two pathways.

1. A clear, organized, formal path is perfect for young adults entering the profession.
2. A flexible approach for those who have carved out a successful career in a more self-directed manner

These two pathways — formal and flexible — are similar to the AnimalKind pathways but teased apart in a different way.

A formal path, in my mind, is an educational program(s) with curriculum that includes the core areas of becoming a dog training professional:

• Train dogs
• Teach people
• Run a business

A flexible approach would rely on the individual providing evidence that they have achieved the core competencies required of a professional dog trainer. This might include a combination of education credentials and evidence of skills and experience.

The education programs listed under “unconditional” include all of these core areas (train dogs, teach people, run a business).  However, also included in this list are standardized examinations and skill assessment processes that are not actual education programs (from CCPDT and PPG). Therefore, the unconditional category is not necessarily concerned the curriculum, but rather the assessment – specifically, theoretical examinations demonstrating knowledge of dog behaviour, and practical examinations demonstrating practical training skills.

I have a few comments about this.

The reliance on standardized testing as a measure of knowledge is a traditional approach. A primary reason for implementing examinations (especially multiple choice/true or false), is the ease in which scores can be generated. The focus is primarily on the needs of the organization. There are more modern and authentic assessment approaches, such as the rigorous case studies required for IAABC’s certification levels which uses a competency-based approach.

In my view, full education (certificate) programs and accreditation (certification) processes do not belong in the same category.

The list of organizations and programs determined by the SPCA to worthy of AnimalKind certification is very short. Another observation is that all of the organizations listed under unconditional and conditional are based in the United States.

I wouldn’t expect every program to be reviewed for inclusion in this document, but it seems a clear process for requesting review should be in place, much like the process for consideration of learning events for CE credits.

There are some excellent and advanced programs excluded, such as:

• Living and Learning with Animals from Behavior Works. This course uses a formative assessment approach with satisfactory completion of each level required before moving on to the next.
• The Instructor Certification for Behaviour Adjustment Training (CBATI) which combines an examination that includes essay responses (not just multiple choice) and a skills assessment component requiring multiple video submissions. Participants in the 5-day intensive workshop also undergo a practical skills assessment.
• Teaching and Learning with Kay Laurence (TAKL) – I’ve listed my reasons for choosing this program in an earlier article, and this is a good overview outlining the requirements to succeed.

I happen to list programs that I’ve completed or are in progress, and I’m sure others who are reviewing the AnimalKind proposal are also comparing their education and experience with the lists provided. I feel this speaks to the need to have an ongoing review process. This requires resources but otherwise AnimalKind will stall.

If the criteria is to include internationally recognized programs, then the many programs available through distance education from other countries should be considered. Hopefully the existing unconditional and conditional lists are just a starting point and the program reviews will continue.

I appreciate that an experience pathway is an option. I do question why number of hours of training experience does not mention quality of those hours. And with the current model, even with letters of support there is no assessment of skills using positive reinforcement training methods. So whereas the emphasis of this standard is that trainers are qualified in humane training, there are no requirements for individuals to provide evidence that they have the skills to apply this knowledge effectively and in a humane manner (as stated in the rationale for selection of the unconditional programs).

CBATI requirements, for example, specify that the 200 hours of experience training dogs is using force-free training techniques. There are no doubt many programs like this that would take the guessing out of the process.

I do like a peer-based approach of providing letters of support, but it could be taken a step further.

In addition to further program reviews there is room for other pathways. Personally, I favour a flexible approach. I also like the idea of involving peers in the process of certification. Ideally this would consider a combination of formal coursework and a prior learning assessment and recognition process. Here is the definition from the Canadian Association for Prior Learning Assessment:

Prior learning assessment and recognition defines processes that allow individuals to identify, document, have assessed and gain recognition for their prior learning. The learning may be formal, informal, non-formal, or experiential.

This portfolio, competency-based model is no small undertaking for either the applicant or for the reviewers. However, it is the ultimate model for providing what the AnimalKind program seeks in its trainers:

…evidence-based knowledge of dog behaviour, the skills to apply this knowledge effectively and in a humane manner, and the tools to teach dog training classes.

I’ve been doing research and sketching out frameworks of what that might look like. I would love to see this become the Canadian model! That’s a topic for another blog post, and clearly beyond the scope of the AnimalKind project, but I mention it here to expand the thinking around dog training certification and standards.

Standard 6: Trainers do not act beyond their professional qualifications

6.2 There is a long list of what is considered to be unauthorized practice. However, the phrasing of this section implies that veterinarians do have the skills, knowledge or qualifications carry out everything on the list. Providing nutritional advice or incorporating  reiki, massage, chiropractic, acupuncture, etc are not typically within the a veterinarian’s standard practice. All require additional study. It would be better to state that these practices require study and qualifications separate from what is required for dog trainers, but surely a dog trainer could become competent in these areas and incorporate them into their practice?

In this statement I wonder if a word other than “permitted” was intended.

Trainers are permitted to suggest to clients that they visit or consult a veterinarian.

Surely anybody is permitted to recommend a veterinarian?

Standard 7: Trainers exhibit a high level of professionalism and ethical behaviour

My only comment for this standard relates to 7.5 – obtaining written informed consent from clients prior to photographing or video/audio recording. The consent should include a statement about how these media will be used.

Standard 8: Assistants are qualified in humane dog handling

I believe the only sections necessary for this standard are:

• 8.3 — that training businesses must supervise assistants and are responsible for dogs under their care
• 8.4 This could be simplified to state that records outlining dates and curriculum for assistant training must be maintained for 12 months. Obviously the training would correspond with the assistant’s job duties.

Standard 9: Trainers ensure clients understand the training methods that will be used. 

9.1 If by the business making the AnimalKind accreditation available in written form to each client means publishing on a business website I have no comments about 9.1.

9.2 This section states that a dog trainer should explain methods, devices, and tools, and common side effects of the training methods used during training. Furthermore, the trainer must ensure clients understand everything that is explained. I imagine both parties would find it challenging to satisfy this standard! How specific should this be? Trainers can do their best to ensure clients understand everything, but it’s unrealistic to think they can know this for sure. And perhaps “methods” should be added to the glossary.

Standard 10: Dogs’ emotional well-being is prioritized at all times during training sessions

This section is clear! Nothing to add.

Standard 11: Training environments are healthy and safe

I don’t have any issues with the criteria listed in this section. However, there are some practices I would need to change to satisfy them. For example, 11.1 “proof” of vaccines, and 11.10 dog/trainer ratios (I often have up to 8 dogs in my group classes.)

Standard 12: Acts of cruelty and neglect are not tolerated

This section is excellent!

General Comments

Finally, I have some general and somewhat random comments about the AnimalKind pilot.

• I think the document would be easier to read if headers were used between the description of the standards and the research.
• I was surprised there is no mention of certification in first aid

I have no time for a summary because the deadline is today! I’m pressing the publish button now! I’d sure be interested in hearing your thoughts on the AnimalKind Dog Training Standards pilot. I hope the SPCA provides a summary of feedback.