Be REALLY Careful With Your Continuing Ed

Apparently some of the courses that are supposedly TREC approved are expired and no longer approved. I received an email from TREC this morning telling me that because of this I have to take 12 more hours of continuing ed. In other words I pretty much wasted all of that time. Be careful.

I see that today they have a blurb about it on the web page…it wasn’t there when I took the continuing ed.

Sitting here now waiting for an email from Nachi telling me which courses are good and which are not BECAUSE THE WEBSITE DOESN’T SAY WHICH ARE GOOD AND WHICH ARE A WASTE OF TIME.

Which courses?

Whose WEB page?

The Nachi continuing Ed page. Ben pointed out that I had taken a couple of courses I had forgotten so I think I’m good but I would have been screwed if not for that. It appears that At The Moment TREC is only accepting about 4 or 5 courses…no where near the 32 hours required for a 2 year license.

Does TREC requiring proctoring the final exam? Illinois does. So with Nachi CE courses I/we have to take the final twice, first to pass the course, second time in front of a proctor.

Also Illinois usually gives credit for half or less than Nachi does. So a 12 hr Nachi course is only good for 6 CE’s in Illinois.

From what I understand TREC changed the rules this past year and all courses (live and online) had to be resubmitted and re-approved as OK for CE credits.

That comment is a very “way over” simplification, but the gist is there. TREC is messing with all the CE training from what I’ve been gathering.

Bottom line … “follow the money” and the lobbying efforts that play into TREC’s pocketbook.

No proctors … “yet”!!

It has been discussed from what I’ve been told.

Thanks for the input about the CE good to know.

Many courses provided by TREC Providers expired as of 12/31/2015; if you took the courses prior to that time and they had approval, those CEs should be okay.

Thanks for the phone call and advice Brenda! I’ll definitely try to make a meeting!

The Texas Real Estate Commission made changes to continuing education that invalidated a huge number of education providers. The result is a catastrophic scramble by providers and inspectors to get approved hours to continue employment. This has been such a big problem that I am amazed it has not been brought to the attention of legislators. This problem is PUTTING PEOPLE OUT OF WORK. That should never be a result of regulation. This is absolutely not a problem caused by InterNACHI.

From my take, the providers cannot raise too much outcry. They rightfully (or should) fear TREC retaliation. Inspectors are also suppressed out of fear of the agency.

Please post a comment if you had trouble getting CEU or maintaining your license. The ripple in the pond needs to be elevated and I will carry the message if desired. I do not want to eliminate TREC. I just want them to ease up so we can work and feed our family’s. Inspectors and providers are not criminals or evil people.

Not to get in where I don’t have a clue, but…
Just an observation from an outsider…
Perhaps there is some truth in this statement which is related to TREC doing what it did? Think about it. What good are CE’s if nobody is learning from them (are only “time wasters”)???

Jeffrey,

Yes that was a poor use of words since I really have not found an INACHI course that was a waste of time whether it was accepted or not for Texas CEU. However
TREC used to accept all kinds of great training from sources such as American Institute of Architects (AIA), Simpson Stong-Tie, Certainteed, etc., etc. This was training people really wanted to take and could learn a great deal from. The latest round of rule changes killed all of that great training. Essentially what happened was TREC would no longer accept training unless some or all of the following were performed; the provider paid TREC a fee to register the course, the course was vetted by TREC, and the course was provided by a trainer that paid TREC a fee to be a trainer and went through the rigmarole to be a trainer. Very few sources are now accepted that have not gone through the rigmarole. After all why would a provider like Simpson Strong-Tie, who always has great training, go through the rigmarole when State licensed Inspectors are not their main audience and are in fact only a small fraction of it?

This is only part of the rules regarding training.

A large part of that problem came with the actions of the Inspector Advisory Committee (IAC) who apparently recommend some of these changes. The IAC is supposedly not there for Inspectors but instead for the consumer. So how does it benefit the consumer to restrict the Inspectors training sources and cut out great sources like Simpson Strong-Tie, Certainteed, AIA, etc.?

Most Inspectors will first try to utilize their time, money, and other resources fulfilling their CEU requirements. Another change was similar courses can not be taken again for two years and obtain CEU credits. These changes take away any incentive for Inspectors to actually take good training they feel they need and instead push them to the “Paid For Training” sources who offer little and whose training in many cases is pathetic.

The rule changes have effectively reduced the sources for CEU training and reduced competition for it. Yes there was a lot of BS training sources being used to fulfill CEU but the rules went from lax to ridiculous in one shot! There was no need for such a wild and severe change in the accepted training for CEU!

It would be interesting to hear from INACHI regarding their latest efforts to have their many course certifications from TREC renewed that expired because they did not file their paperwork and pay their fees. Apparently that has been an ongoing effort for how many months now?

Jeffrey,

Yes that was a poor use of words since I really have not found an INACHI course that was a waste of time whether it was accepted or not for Texas CEU. However TREC used to accept all kinds of great training from sources such as American Institute of Architects (AIA), Simpson Stong-Tie, Certainteed, etc., etc. This was training people really wanted to take and could learn a great deal from. The latest round of rule changes killed all of that great training. Essentially what happened was TREC would no longer accept training unless some or all of the following were performed; the provider paid TREC a fee to register the course, the course was vetted by TREC, and the course was provided by a trainer that paid TREC a fee to be a trainer and went through the rigmarole to be a trainer. Very few sources are now accepted that have not gone through the rigmarole. After all why would a provider like Simpson Strong-Tie, who always has great training, go through the rigmarole when State licensed Inspectors are not their main audience and are in fact only a small fraction of it?

This is only part of the rules regarding training.

Quote:
 	 		 			 				(2) The following persons may submit real estate

inspector qualifying courses for approval for credit under §535.62(i) of this subchapter without becoming an approved provider of qualifying courses:
(A) a provider approved by an inspector regulatory
agency of another state;
(B) an accredited college or university in accordance with §535.66 of this subchapter;
© a United States armed forces institute;
(D) a unit of federal, state or local government;
(E) a nationally recognized building, electrical,
plumbing, mechanical or fire code organization;
(F) a professional trade association in the inspection field or in a related technical field; or
(G) an entity whose courses are approved and regulated by an agency of this state.
A large part of that problem came with the actions of the Inspector Advisory Committee (IAC) who apparently recommend some of these changes. The IAC is supposedly not there for Inspectors but instead for the consumer. So how does it benefit the consumer to restrict the Inspectors training sources and cut out great sources like Simpson Strong-Tie, Certainteed, AIA, etc.?

Most Inspectors will first try to utilize their time, money, and other resources fulfilling their CEU requirements. Another change was similar courses can not be taken again for two years and obtain CEU credits. These changes take away any incentive for Inspectors to actually take good training they feel they need and instead push them to the “Paid For Training” sources who offer little and whose training in many cases is pathetic.

The rule changes have effectively reduced the sources for CEU training and reduced competition for it. Yes there was a lot of BS training sources being used to fulfill CEU but the rules went from lax to ridiculous in one shot! There was no need for such a wild and severe change in the accepted training for CEU!

It would be interesting to hear from INACHI regarding their latest efforts to have their many course certifications from TREC renewed that expired because they did not file their paperwork and pay their fees. Apparently that has been an ongoing effort for how many months now?

Jeffrey,

Yes that was a poor use of words since I really have not found an INACHI course that was a waste of time whether it was accepted or not for Texas CEU. However TREC used to accept all kinds of great training from sources such as American Institute of Architects (AIA), Simpson Stong-Tie, Certainteed, etc., etc. This was training people really wanted to take and could learn a great deal from. The latest round of rule changes killed all of that great training. Essentially what happened was TREC would no longer accept training unless some or all of the following were performed; the provider paid TREC a fee to register the course, the course was vetted by TREC, and the course was provided by a trainer that paid TREC a fee to be a trainer and went through the rigmarole to be a trainer. Very few sources are now accepted that have not gone through the rigmarole. After all why would a provider like Simpson Strong-Tie, who always has great training, go through the rigmarole when State licensed Inspectors are not their main audience and are in fact only a small fraction of it?

This is only part of the rules regarding training.

A large part of that problem came with the actions of the Inspector Advisory Committee (IAC) who apparently recommend some of these changes. The IAC is supposedly not there for Inspectors but instead for the consumer. So how does it benefit the consumer to restrict the Inspectors training sources and cut out great sources like Simpson Strong-Tie, Certainteed, AIA, etc.?

Most Inspectors will first try to utilize their time, money, and other resources fulfilling their CEU requirements. Another change was similar courses can not be taken again for two years and obtain CEU credits. These changes take away any incentive for Inspectors to actually take good training they feel they need and instead push them to the “Paid For Training” sources who offer little and whose training in many cases is pathetic.

The rule changes have effectively reduced the sources for CEU training and reduced competition for it. Yes there was a lot of BS training sources being used to fulfill CEU but the rules went from lax to ridiculous in one shot! There was no need for such a wild and severe change in the accepted training for CEU!

It would be interesting to hear from INACHI regarding their latest efforts to have their many course certifications from TREC renewed that expired because they did not file their paperwork and pay their fees. Apparently that has been an ongoing effort for how many months now?

Thanks Manny. Even though I have no dog in the TREC battle, I watch because MN is currently unlicensed, but it is only a matter of time before another yahoo tries to push it through. With all the BS that’s been going on in this state lately, and with Radon licensing (very poorly written, surprise!) being “slipped in” with no public awareness, I’m trying to be prepared for whatever comes down.

Regarding CE no one learns from: They are good for the agency who charges to approve them and the provider who teaches them. $$$

Home inspection is a very diverse field as is the possible course work opportunities. Micromanagement of courses eliminates a lot of excellent educational opportunities. Regulation results in super structured classes that can result in little to learn from.

I consider myself a good instructor. I know others as well. We refuse to spend the energy to put up with over bearing regulation therefore much is lost to the industry. I know a number of excellent seminar providers who do not submit courses for approval due to the hurdles.

And so I counter by asking “what good is over-regulation of education if the course is a waste of time”?

Almost every inspector I know has a thirst from more education. Sure there are a few exceptions . . . but do we strangle knowledge for lazy people?

If TREC wants more money then deregulate education and quintuple the license fee. That will get rid of lazy inspectors and good inspectors will continue to learn because they want to.

I may offer a CE class that says “NOT TREC APPOVED”. Properly marketed I think the class would be full. It would be nice to hear people say “we came here to learn. . . not to get TREC CEU credits”.

I don’t think New York State accepts any online classes for home inspector CE, but that isn’t why I take them. I want to be the best home inspector I can be. Right now I’m a very small fish in a very large pond, but it won’t always be so. I even kind of enjoy sitting in a real class for CE credits, it’s one of the few times I get to hang out with other inspectors without it being adversarial.