Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory committee backs technical edits to education rules and lower continuing‑education hours
Summary
The BSRB advisory committee recommended that the board adopt regulatory changes: strike the ambiguous 'in resident' definition from psychology regulations and replace it with explicit language, accept coursework from APA‑accredited programs without listing specific courses, and align continuing education hours (psychology/master’s psychology 50→40) with category caps noted.
WICHITA (remote) — Members of the Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board advisory committee voted by consensus to recommend multiple technical and regulatory edits to the board, including clarifying the phrase 'in resident' in psychology education rules and standardizing continuing‑education (CE) hour requirements across professions.
Executive Director David Fye presented draft language for KAR 102‑1‑12 (the education requirement regulation for psychology) and explained why the committee should remove the term "in resident," which currently has inconsistent meanings across BSRB professions. Fye proposed striking the definition from the regulation and replacing instances of the term with literal language specifying that required coursework be "completed while the student is physically present at the institution‑identified location with one or more core faculty members in physical proximity and face‑to‑face contact." Fye told the committee this approach reduces confusion and makes the rule easier to defend to the public and the legislature.
The committee also supported harmonizing CE requirements. Fye noted that most states set licensed psychology CE at 40 hours rather than Kansas’s prior 50 hours and recommended a reduction for psychology and master’s‑level psychology licenses; category requirements (for example, an ethics requirement) were retained and clarified. The committee discussed category caps, cross‑disciplinary CE allowances and limits for research paper credits and reached consensus to forward the proposed adjustments to the board.
On supervision flexibility, committee members discussed a compromise proposed by the professional counseling advisory group: require that at least half the supervision hours be provided by a board‑approved clinical professional counselor while allowing up to half to be provided by another qualified BSRB profession if extenuating circumstances are demonstrated. Members supported limited flexibility, with safeguards to ensure important competencies (notably psychological testing and assessment) still receive direct psychologist oversight when appropriate.
Committee members agreed by consensus to recommend these regulatory changes to the BSRB board and asked staff to include the edits for consideration at the next board meeting. No formal regulation was adopted at this meeting; the advisory committee’s role is to provide recommendations to the board for final action.
