Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Transfer Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee continues review of integrated-degree rules, transfer units and graduate course content for MFT licensure
Summary
Committee discussed clarifying what counts as a single integrated MFT degree, scenarios for transfer units (including school closures and combined programs), and a preliminary outline of core graduate-level and supplemental California-specific coursework; no motion was taken and staff will refine definitions and time-limit options.
The Board of Behavioral Sciences Workforce Development Committee spent significant time on April 16 considering how to define a "single integrated" qualifying master’s degree for marriage and family therapy and how many graduate-level units a receiving program may accept from other programs.
Rosanne Helms, legislative manager, described recurring scenarios that complicate degree verification: schools that close, combined or sequential degree pathways where graduate-level coursework spans multiple programs, and undergraduate students completing graduate-level courses later counted toward a qualifying degree. Staff proposed language to allow limited transfer of master’s-level units (a working proposal suggested up to 12 semester units) but said practicum coursework should generally be completed through the degree-granting institution.
University representatives welcomed clearer rules. Gina Mertz of Jessup University and others urged the committee to specify time limits on transferred coursework (the universities suggested a six- to seven-year currency rule) and recommended that receiving programs be permitted or encouraged to audit transferred coursework for equivalence. Mertz also asked that transferred units be California-specific when the topic requires state-specific instruction.
Stakeholders from the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists and others posed focused questions about whether prohibiting transfer of practicum hours would create license-portability problems; staff explained the intent is that practicum be a core element overseen by the degree-granting institution and welcomed concrete examples from stakeholders to test the approach.
On graduate-level course content (step two of staff’s education-review project), staff presented a draft chart of proposed core content areas and a second chart of supplemental coursework that could be remediated through continuing education or targeted units. Core areas included assessment and diagnosis, lifespan development, systemic family theory and practice with couples and children, research literacy and clinical skills; supplemental California-specific topics would include child-abuse reporting, suicide risk assessment and other legal/mandated topics.
Committee members and stakeholders suggested additional topics and operational questions: how new requirements would be certified on Form B (the schools’ program certification), whether transferred courses must be recent, and whether the board should create a formal program-approval process. Staff said these matters will be refined with subject-matter experts, legal counsel and stakeholders and would return to the committee in later drafts.
No motion was taken on these items; staff will work with stakeholders to define terms (including "degree-granting" versus "receiving institution"), propose time-limit options for transferred coursework, clarify whether and how practicum transfer might be allowed in unusual cases, and refine charted course requirements before returning to the committee.
