A "National" Certification Mill Expelled by BPI

BPI's requirement of Video taping proctored tests appears to have scored if not its first, but its Biggest Culprit. A well known, if not respected, National Training Mill has lost its BPI Test Center Status. Why?, ... well that is obvious to any legitimate Test Center. The Fly In / Fly Out method of "Training" does not stand up to scrutiny. I hope that more group members that are 'In the Know" are more willing in the future, to comment on similar examples of training fraud & failure. Only by shining the light on such Training Mills will our industry ever rid itself of such Charletan's.

Tags: Analyst, BPI, Building, Center, Test, Training

Views: 1658

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, a very interesting choice of wording.  He uses the word "elected", ...while BPI uses the word "Terminated". I too found it odd that this post was removed so quickly. Hmmmm!? 

Congrats to BPI on upping the game. Which company is it that got booted? Send me a email if you don't want to go public with the info.I'm super curious to know what certification mill got booted. Thanks 

Leslie McDowell wrote on Linkedin

"It’s important to note that all training organizations that offer classes to prepare for BPI exams offer them independently of BPI, so BPI’s decisions regarding its relationship with proctors and test centers have no bearing on training in the marketplace".

Why does CleanEdisons website state BPI approved training? No bearing on training in the marketplace? Please explain this statement Leslie. If I were looking for training I would assume CleanEdison had a direct relationship with BPI. After all BPI "approved training" appears to be direct. Am I missing something?

As a BPI certified proctor and an accepted trainer perhaps, I can shed some light on the relationships. Training provided for BPI certification must have an approved curriculum. While BPI does not use the label "approved" on either trainers or curricula, you had better believe they have reviewed the documents for both and found them either acceptable or not acceptable. To be acceptable they must address the core competencies established by BPI. Curriculum developed and used by CleanEdison has been found acceptable to BPI, otherwise, you would not see it offered as such. I can personally attest to that process.

Not long ago, a trainer and proctor could be the same individual, and generally worked for an organization with a test facility. In this case, there was a direct link between instructor, proctor, training organization, and BPI. Furthermore, proctors reported both to their training organization and to BPI. While this continues to be the case with MFBA, it is no longer the case with certifications that have field testing "in the field" as opposed to "on-line".

This year particularly, BPI has undergone a major transition in its relationship to all previous “partners”. BPI has always had a hands-off relationship regarding the activities of trainers and it had a very clear connection to proctors and what was once called "Affiliates". The title Affiliate is no longer used, but was initially the entity that connected all the spokes to the wheel. It has, in some part, evolved into the Test Centers. In most cases, I believe this separation makes sense and introduces a level of security into the certification process. It also helps to remove any conflict of interest in the testing process and management of certifications and standards, which is BPI's main focus.

Regarding CleanEdison's connection with BPI and their qualifications as instructors or providers of training, they still have a relationship and will continue to do so as long as they continue to offer training that leads to BPI certification. The decision, either way, for CleanEdison to remain a Test Center is an irrelevant issue. It neither reflects on the quality of their curricula or their instructors. In fact, having met many of their instructors I say they are top notch with a wealth of experience behind them and a universal commitment to ensuring that students are empowered and successful.

Referring back to the original issue that started this chain I challenge the terms "Training Mill" and "Certification Mill". So which activity causes you grief? If you are assuming that training on a national level somehow discredits the quality of the education, then you haven't been to a large university. That's education on a large scale. There is no evidence the education at the adult level is better at a smaller institution than a larger one. The same applies to a private organization. So what is the problem with Clean Edison's Training? If you are really unhappy with the number of certifications that CleanEdison is able to engender, I would argue that they have a record of selecting qualified students who are able to pass the certification exams as opposed to organizations who are less selective. Having worked with a number of different organizations, public and private, I know that when my students have a background in the industry and are motivated to succeed, I have higher pass rates.

I thought we were in this together to better educate the consumer, improve the quality of the service provider and our industry as a whole, and reduce fossil fuel consumption.  So perhaps, you can explain to me what I'm missing?

Hello all, As a BPI proctor in four certifications I have seen a frightening lack of hands on auditing skills for people seeking recertification in BA, Envelope, and Heating. As a matter of course I do not ask my recertification candidates where they received their initial certification until after the recert test is completed. Generally their answer is one of many certifications mills (both public and private) that we love to hate.As the director of training for a mid size EE retrofit training center and a trainer for one BPI certification I know that quality training hinges on small class size and a well equipped training space. A 6 student to 1 trainer ratio is best, this allows students to really get the "hands on" knowledge they need to successfully challenge the field test.In regards to training labs, multiple furnaces and boilers, a full size training house,an air sealing and insulation lab make for a better training enviroment. So far I've seen few "certification mill" training providers invest in training spaces. They rather train on the cheap. I've seen some training providers with class sizes of up to twenty students or more,training in students houses with less than optimal conditions. I've heard horror stories from former trainees of these certification mills. Again I congratulate BPI for upping the game.




Home Energy Pros

Home Energy Pros was founded by the developers of Home Energy Saver Pro (sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy,) and brought to you in partnership with Home Energy magazine.  Home Energy Pros is sponsored by the Better Buildings Residential Network.

Latest Activity

Bud Poll replied to John Carton's discussion Smoke Puffer stick
"Hi John, I recently purchased some used equipment and they included their smoke-pen.  I had…"
23 hours ago
Ryan Puckett is now a member of Home Energy Pros
Mary Desilva posted a blog post

Why Do You Need Wet Basement Waterproofing Before It Is Too Late?

The thought of establishment repair is sufficient to make most property holders alarm, however how…See More
John Carton posted a discussion

Smoke Puffer stick

Does anyone have any suggestions for an easy to use and rugged smoke puffer stick?Prefer not to…See More
Profile IconJesse, Daniel and John Carton joined Home Energy Pros
John Kaye commented on Diane Chojnowski's group Home Energy Pros on Twitter
"Happy Halloween Home Energy Pros tweet me  https://twitter.com/JohnKayeEnergy"
John Kaye joined Diane Chojnowski's group

Home Energy Pros on Twitter

We've created a twitter list of members of Home Energy Pros who tweet!See More
EnergyLogic Academy posted blog posts

© 2015   Created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service