Questions for educ admin and council

We got a green light from Alex for this month, just working on a date and then I'll kick a thread going.

Thanks for this list Senan, it will help me know where to look/who to ask for things - it's a much more usefully condensed resource than my IP Lesson Zero answers! We've already had Atticus on "After IP" and Rosalyn J on "Clergy". It will be good to hear from Alex about "Education" now.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Why is there no published policy and procedure manual for apprenticeship?

Previously it was up to the Mentor and Council to manage this so the Apprentice didn't have to know or worry about any of it besides who to link up with at the beginning. The Apprentice focus was meant to be only on the task at hand, not the process. So it was generally Knight only level information about the details of making it all work behind the scenes, but since you asked.... the rather boring procedure is at;
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/45-general-decrees-general-laws/2279-council-secretary
and;
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/component/content/article/34-policies/2037-temple-of-the-jedi-order

Moving forward, I'd suggest the solution is to stop using the A. Div as a requirement for the Apprenticeship as that is just using old language which happened to be accurate but no longer is..... as IMO it was one of two ways to represent the point workload requirement of an Apprenticeship - but no longer does since points can be gathered within the AIP/SIP. I'd just use the point requirement explicitly as the minimum work measure, much like there is/was a minimum time measure I think (though it ain't written there?). Though of course a restructure can change all of that, so the future depends on who is in charge rather then my opinions :silly:
Or alternatively not count the AIP work to a Degree but that seems a bit unusual to me, or maybe find another work measure to serve an interaction minimum as assessment of the journal alone is a bit too subjective without some hard minimums IMO, as the Council vote provides the subjective measure enough IMO.

Edit: sorry for the edit to anyone who read the original post of mine, I used the wrong law :S

Thanks Adder, I have never seen those laws before.

Alex,
This is what i mean by your mishandling of my case. The "application for Knighthood Law" clearly states that the requirements for A-div must be met before the interview is granted. This either did not happen in my case or it was ret-coned as an excuse to deny me. Now sure which but according to the story I got I was not eligible because I didnt meet the points requirements and yet I was granted an interview anyway. Also the first time through I was not asked to submit an assessment of my time here. It was not until my second attempt that it was requested I do this. The council either does not follow their own rules (Laws) or they just bend them to whatever they want at the time.

As said previously, this is the third time so I will try to rephrase again in the hope it makes more sense. It used to be that the stated requirement for work activity was written at the site as both a point requirement for Apprenticeship and the A. Div for Apprenticeship.... because previously they were the same thing (since an Apprenticeship was the only way to get it).

But two things happened around the time you went thru;
1. the pages stating the point requirement for Apprenticeship seemed to have been lost in various site updates over the years, leaving only the wording of the A. Div as the requirement, and
2. when the SIP/AIP came in, this created another avenue to gather points but was outside the Apprenticeship.

Those two things meant an Apprentice could be presented to Council with less then the point requirement for Apprenticeship but meeting the A. Div point requirement. If you can get that point then you might get what happened.

This circumstance was new, and not expected probably by Council or the people running the SIP/AIP.

So me as Council Secretary, being the person doing most all comms and organization of member admin in Council at the time, I elected to put your application forward with the question to clarify this new point issue. Because yours was the first to highlite this issue AFAIK.

It took a bit of time in Council to clarify the point position of Council (being the points needed to be done within the Apprenticeship for the Apprenticeship), and by the time that you'd progressed to the voting phase of the process. So, where things fell was you needed more points, but when you asked why you didn't get voted in you got an answer as to why people voted the way they did. Even if you'd been voted as acceptable you might not have gotten it until completing more lessons. I chose this path not because it was easier (I had to organize interviews and run the process)..... as it turns out it would have been easier for me to do nothing and wait until the decision was made BUT that would have run the risk of taking much longer as things were taking a lot of time to progress in Council most of the time and it was sometimes like trying to push a large rock uphill in there to get things done which I could not do myself. I'm not sure why the TM left, or what comms youz had with Councillors, so to me it was as simple as doing a few more lessons.

Hypothesis that went through my head, tis probably nonsense but,

Maybe …

a. Your Master said you were ready for Knighthood because you reached the 100 + 100 points needed to become a Knight
b. Your case is presented to the council
c. Eyebrows are raised ( understatement) and a councillor reads your journal and is not impressed with your work because it lacked depth in certain areas in his opinion and he thinks you have been to highly graded for the few lessons you did ( this is about the visible part of your apprenticeship)
d. Another councillor starts grading your journal and decides she can only grant 55 points for the work you did , so she advises that you do more work.
e. Your Master does not agree and referred to a part of the apprenticeship that is not visible to us
f. The request of your apprenticeship gets denied ..

In my opinion it then has nothing to do with rules here and there but the mere fact that there is a learning part in the apprenticeships that is not visible to the public and not even to the other TMs or even to the council. I think this should be a worry to other TMs who train their apprentices offline, it could very well be that when your apprentice comes up for Knighthood the council can decide at will that your apprentice will not be Knighted merely on the fact that training was not visible and they decide that your apprentice does not show growth or developes the way they like them to. And be aware that forum behaviour and other obnoxious expressions by apprentices shall be taken into consideration , well that is not a certainty but would certainly be a worry of mine if i was still a TM here. It is a part of the apprenticeship that is vague and can be used against you at will.

This is not an attack on the council btw it's merely exploring the hypothetical possibilities and surfacing flaws that might help in the process of change the Temple is in.

Adder wrote: 1. the pages stating the point requirement for Apprenticeship seemed to have been lost in various site updates over the years, leaving only the wording of the A. Div as the requirement, and
2. when the SIP/AIP came in, this created another avenue to gather points but was outside the Apprenticeship.

Those two things meant an Apprentice could be presented to Council with less then the point requirement for Apprenticeship but meeting the A. Div point requirement. If you can get that point then you might get what happened.

Is this before or after the SIP/AIP was changed to specifically not apply to the A. Div.? Because my current understanding is that it doesn't, and those points apply after the A. Div.