yashak

Hi all, This is a forum where we should express our ideas, views and opinions that can help our cause. Even though we don't know what caused our director to act like this, we still hope that we have a strong argument and evidence to back our cause. While hoping the board will come up with a workable solution to the problem, we have to discuss what our next step should be. We already sent a letter to the board to explain what has happened was without our knowledge and we want to keep the channnel of communication open and transparent. In the mean time, I am planning to call an online meeting for this weekend and everyone who is interested to attend and have an idea can send me a PM and e-mail address. I would add them into my contact list and invite them to the online meeting. If anyone has a different idea, I am open for discussion. We know how we are perceived by majority of US pharmacists and we shouldn't talk about it. We can't change that and let us focus on the main issue we are dealing with. Yashak

Hi fafy, Thank you for your support and I would like to assure you that there are other members too who passd TOFEL-iBT and still believe in the cause we are fighting for and with us. We always appreciate your feedback. Yashak

Hi fafy, This is a forum where we have to express our opinions freely and we respect your opinion. We aren't here to influence others opinion. Before we heard from the NABP about the dissolution of our association, we had so many negative responses and attitudes from the director. Before we posted our petition, we sent her a copy to review, comment and post it. When we failed to get any response, we decided to post our petition in order for every one to read and comment on it. We were expecting leadership from her but it was disappointing to have a different petition in stead of strengthening or changing the original one. We were convinced that both petitions would make a difference and we never showed any negative feelings and in fact we encouraged candidates to send which ever they think make sense. When the time comes to write a letter to ask the NABP to alow two IPHARM-US members to attend the meeting, the director wasn't only non supportive but strogly disagreed. That was a wake up call to us but didn't expect this would happen to us. Anyway, I wonder when you say 'you will receive a good news from NABP", are you part of us or what do you mean? If the director hasn't written any letter to the NABP about the dissolution of the association, the letter is clear and unambigous. She can challenge the board. It is also puzzling to us why and how this happened without our knowledge. If you think the board is doing this to divide us, we will wait and see. But we still hope that we will prevail. yashak

Hi all, It is saddening to hear from the NABP that our association is dissolved without our knowledge by a single person who is either misguided or disgruntled who until the first week of October telling members of this forum to send the petition while advising the NABP not to give a damn about IPHARM-US. It is a question of integrity and personality. Anyway, one thing we understand from the letter Giday has sent to the NABP and the NABP’s response to the letter is the people at NABP are ready to listen to us. So, what should be done as an individual or as a group is an important issue we need to discuss. First and foremost, we need to tell the NABP that one person has no right to dissolve an association and can’t speak on our behalf. It is upto the individual to resign his/her position but has no authority to dissolve an association without the board members knowledge. I am going to draft a letter to send to the NABP to inform them our association is still intact and even though it is late for the October meeting to have our members represented at the meeting, we still want to keep the communication channel open. I ask those responsible members to have an online meeting as urgently as possible to discuss the next step. Shame on the person who stab us at this critical time. Yashak

Hi all, It is a blessing to have very knowledgeable and thoughtful people in this forum. We all are working for the same cause despite our difference on the strategy. We need to respect one another and each others view. Anyway, the letter to request the board to allow two IPHARM-US members to attend the October meeting is already sent.*** [Edited..Letter contains offensive langauge. I disagree with the content of the letter since you are across the line. Sensiitve information should not be posted in public. ]

Hi all, This is Knok's response about our quest for Knok to help us in asking the board, on behalf of the IPHARM-US, to allow our representative to be present in the Board's meeting. If I understood it correctly, she doesn't seem interested to advocate for us. So, I am preparing a letter to ask the board to allow a few candidates at our own expense to attend the meeting and if possible to present our concern in a very brief and clear manner. Once the letter is ready, i will post it as long as we are allowed to use this forum. Thanks, Yashak Posted by: knok On: 09-22-2008 12:23 PM We already addressed our concern in May. I don't think that the Board will allow us to attend the October meeting. They are trying to do their jobs. I don't want to intervene. We should give information to NABP by sending a concise and straight forward letter. Remember that NABP members have many jobs to do each day. We need to take the action that is effective. I wish that there are more members who can write well, especially those who have advanced degrees in the US or those who have English as their primary language or spouses who are willing to help step up to help. Thanks. Knok All the best, TestMagic Forums

Hi all, Finally, the final version of our petition is posted and we hope that everyone agrees on the content and message. Even though there was some concern about the size of the letter, we believe the board will spend some time to read and address our concern regardless of the number of pages. We encourage everyone to send it either by mail or fax with his/her signature. Saying this, I would like to comment what would be the next step. Once the board begins receiving the petition, we will follow up with an official letter through IPHARM-US to request the board to allow us to appear in person to hear their delibration and also have a face to face conversation. This is my personal opinion and would like others to comment on this. I would like to thank everyone who participates in this forum and particularly Gidey for his time, energy and hard work to prepare this petition. Yashak

Hi all, Thank you coolmaddy for the info. I was trying to get a direct e-mail but I will try to send it through CNN.com/contactus. Finally, I received the feedback from and working on it. Once we agreed on the final version, we will post it. yashak

Hi All, I am still waiting for a response from my friend for his feedback but if I don't get a response from by the end of the day, we will finalize the letter and ask every one to act in a way he/she thinks feasible and effective. If there is anyone who knows the e-mail or mail address of Sanjay Gupta, a medical corrospondent for CNN, it is important to send him a copy as he knows very well about the shortage of pharmacists and its impact on medication errors. I was expecting veteran members of this association to have their input but it seems that most of us already give a thumbs up on the content. The board may say a lot but I even personally requested an official data about the total number of iBT-TOFEL takers (FPGEE candidates) and the percentage who passed since iBT-TOFEL was enacted as a test. I haven't gotten any response and it showed a serious problem from their side about the response they gave to medscape. we believe we are too many and there is a serious problem in using iBT -TOFEL as the only test method. I personally don't the journalist at Medscape though I am a subscriber to Medscape. If there is anyone who knows about it, it is very encouarging to send a copy of this letter. Yashak

Hi all, I was a kind of busy yesterday and was unable to do much. Though I haven't heard from my friend about his opinion or comments, I will catch up with him this evening and update you about his feedback. Generally, it seems most of you don't have reservation on the content of the letter. It seems that there is a concern about the number of pages which may cause some uneasiness for some of our brothers and sisters who are abroad. Some of us are also concerned the board mightn't read it if it is too many pages. Thank you for all but we will try to shorten it without changing its content and message. We don' believe this is the only way to respond but if any one of you thinks there is other ways, please don't hesitate to act. If we talk to the board in different ways but for the same cause , it is a plus. Yashak

Hi all, First of all, this kind of complaint shouldn't be sent by e-mail. The board wants this kind of complaint or petition to be sent either by fax or mailwith EE# and date of birth included. Those candidates who are outide the country can send by mail as fax may be costly. I am encouraged by how fast the news spread. Though there is some disappointent, there is some hope we can achieve something by informing the board. If there are other ways to talk to the board, we are happy to discuss it in this forum or any other place. I am also asking a friend of mine who is a lawyer to comment on the letter and hopefully Iwill get his feedback by tomorrow and will update you. Yashak

Hello tsetaker, Thank you very much for your input and I tried it and it is working. However, I don't know if we need to send to every Executive member. It doesn't hurt to send to every executive member but let's discuss this issue further. Yashak

Hi all, We are eagerly waiting for your feedbacks and we encourage you to spread the word about the letter to as many candidates as possible. Thank you for your time in advance. Yashak

Hi All, As we promised ealier to post the draft letter to the NABP in response to their September newsletter, we are posting the draft and we encourage everyone to post his/her input and we will incorporate new ideas or delete something particpants believe not relevant or inappropriate. I encourage everyone to read it, discuss with all of their freinds and families and agree with the contents of the letter. Once we make the final version ready and proofread it, we will decide how we can deliver it to the board to be considered and reviewed by the committee. Either individauls can sign and send it directly to the board or in groups. We also encourage everyone to spread the news about the response and stay tuned to our next action. Yashak The letter is here below: To: Ø NABP Executive Committee; Ø NABP advisory committee on Examination (ACE); Ø Task force Members; Subject: The NABP Task Force’s Recommendation Regarding TOEFL-iBT Dear: NABP ExecutiveCommittee, NABP advisory committee on Examination (ACE), Task force Members: We, the candidates of FPGEC: 1. Appreciating all the efforts that the NABP undertook hitherto and continue to undertake in the future to update rules and regulation that ensure a first rate pharmacy practice in the USA; 2. Recognizing the concerns of the NABP on issues that may compromise the quality of service; 3. Finally, understanding the significance of effective communication and its importance in protecting the public from heath havocs that may arise due to substandard language proficiency; Respectfully submit this letter of petition in response to the Task force’s recommendation with respect to TOEFL-iBT that appeared in the September 2008 issue of the NABP Newsletter. THE PETITION In the first place, our sincere appreciation goes to the NABP for bringing test takers problems to its attention and due consideration. We hope the NABPExecutive Committeewould objectively assess the situation at length and thoroughly discuss the test takers problems and complaints related to TOEFL-iBT in their upcoming deliberations and come up with a more realistic way of measuring language proficiency that would by no means compromises the quality and standard of pharmacy practice. Having said this, we would like to directly go to the main purpose of this letter of petition. However, we found it both important and relevant to briefly mention some of the issues addressed in the newsletter by the task force convened to assess the situation. According to the newsletter, the task force at the request of NABP Advisory Committee on Examination (ACE) investigated alternative vehicles for evaluating Language proficiency. Although additional information regarding the task force’s recommendations will be available in future time, the September issue has offered summary of the task force’s recommendation which says “after carefulconsideration of the other English language proficiency examinations available, ACE recommended to the NABP Executive Committee that the FPGEC forego the adoption of a new examination and continue to require the TOEFL-iBT since the examination reaches the greatest number of FPGEC applicants and provides continuity and uniformity in testing from location to location.” The task force, in order to support and justify its conclusions and recommendations, has used the following three explanations and elaborations in the newsletter. 1. TOEFL-iBT provides uniformity of the requirements for the FPGEC Certificate. The task force elaborates its point by saying “in order to ensure that all applicants meet the same criteria, it is imperative that only one proficiency examination is endorsed for the FPGEC Certificate.” 2. Accessibility of the proficiency evaluation. According to the task force the evaluation must be accessible to the greatest number of applicants. For this purpose the task force has found TOEFL iBT to be suitable because, according to its report, TOEFL-iBT is offered 30 to 40 times a year and is available to 178 countries. Despite the fact that the University of Michigan’s English Language Assessment Battery (MELAB) and the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) are possible options to TOEFL-iBT, the task force does not consider these as feasible choices because, according to the task force MELAB is offered a limited number of times per year and is available in just two countries and the IELTS, though offering the test 30 to 40 times a year, is limited to 120 countries. 3. The impact of switching the required evaluation. According to the task force nearly half of the member boards of pharmacy specify in their requirements that foreign graduates complete the TOEFL, TSE, or the TOEFL-iBT in addition to maintaining the FPGEC Certificate. Dear NABP Executive Committee, NABP advisory committee on Examination (ACE), and the Task force Members, We, the test takers, have found the recommendations lacked realistic arguments and suffered from in-depth discussions and assessments on facts that are essential to explain and convince why NABP is adopting TOEFL-iBT. We doubt very much if the reasons given by the Task force could have any relevance to the purpose of measuring language proficiency. Next, we would like to elaborate our counterclaims to each point of the task force’s recommendation. The first recommendation, which says “TOEFL-iBT provides uniformity of the requirements for the FPGEC Certificate”, is simply not true. We believe TOEFL-iBT doesn’t provide uniformity when it comes to measuring language proficiency. § Firstly, TOEFL-iBT does not use the same questions in the test. Instead it uses different questions that have different level of difficulties at different days of the test. In this regard, there is no any convincing reason to believe that all applicants meet the same criteria; § Secondly, ETS lacks clarity. The scoring process lacks transparency and is made in way that is not clear to test takers. It does not provide its comments and feedbacks in such a manner that clearly reflects the test taker’s performance. Instead, ETS sends the same cliché to everybody, which does not identify any specific description on individual test taker’s deficiencies; § Thirdly, ETS claims itself to be a nonprofit entity but when we see some of its rules we a have doubt if such claim is true. Let us give one example here. These days, many test takers are registering online for the test, without any involvement of ETS’s staff. However, ETS charges 50% of the fee whenever the test taker, for a reason, wants to cancel the test or wants to switch from one test site to the other. If this is not an indication of profit generation, then what is this? We are not saying that this has to be 100% free but it should be a reasonable charge; § Lastly, the task force itself believes MELAB and IELTS to be possible alternatives to TOEFL-iBT. So the question here is whether or not these two organizations have the ability and capacity to meet the minimum standard of measuring language proficiency. If we believe so, we do not see any fact that would concern the task force with respect to the uniformity of the requirements for the FPGEC Certificate. The second point of concern of the Task force was Accessibility of the Proficiency Evaluation. We found this argument to be unsatisfactory and irrelevant when it comes to measuring test takers language proficiency. Again the concern here should have been whether or not those available testing institutions have the capacity to evaluate test takers language proficiency. For obvious reasons we opt not to argue with the tasks force’s recommendation that TOEFL-iBT is better accessible when compared to MELAB and IELTS. However, our argument is weather or not this poof of burden should be of concern to the NABP. We believe the NABP should leave this proof of burden to test takers. § First, although, we don’t have the statistics we guess that most of the test takers who are struggling to meet the NABP’s TOEFL-iBT requirements are concentrated in the USA. So this makes the recommendation to be questionable. § Second, if the preference is left to test takers, it is up to the test taker to select and arrange a center that is logistically feasible to them. The third point recommended by the task force is regarding the impact of switching the required evaluation. We don’t believe this to be factual because to our understanding the FPGEC certificate has two components. One component is the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Exam (FPGEE) result and the second is the evidence of language proficiency. In this connection, what the states board of pharmacies ask for is FPGEC certificate which witness that the candidate has passed the FPGEE and is able to communicate in English. We are not sure if the State boards of pharmacies are much concerned whether the individual has passed the TOEFL-iBT or MELAB or IELTS. The task force also mentioned that different organizations were involved and participated when the standard requirements of TOEFL-iBT were set at a meeting sponsored by ETS. These were the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS), the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN), the EducationalCommission for Foreign Veterinary Graduates (ECFVG), the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy, and the National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy. To our curiosity, we have tried to review the language proficiency requirements of the three organization- the CGFNS and MCSBN- which we believe are working in the same working environment and are highly involved in a patient care, if not more at least in the same degree of patient interaction-and that of ECFVG- which we found it to be relevant to our cause.1. CGFNS Certification Program for Registered Nurses Program Requirements 2008 Edition (http://www.cgfns.org/files/pdf/req/cp-requirements.pdf)provides applicants an option to select one from the following. The TOEFL-iBT administered by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) and the passing Score is a total of 83. Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), administered by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), and the passing Score is 725. International English Language Testing System (IELTS), administered by the Cambridge ESOL Examinations, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia and the passing Score is 6.5 Overall (Academic Module).2. The National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) which represents about 60 state and territorial boards of nursing who regulate nurses in the United States understands that adequate language proficiency is crucial for nursing practice (https://www.ncsbn.org/positionlangTemplate.pdf). To materialize this, the NCSBN, on behalf of its member boards, has developed the minimum level of English language proficiency requirements that they believe are sufficient for nurses to be able to perform their duties efficiently and effectively. The requirements are either to meet an overall scores of 6.5 with a minimum of 6.0 in all modules of the standard of IELTS or TOEFL-iBT overall scores of 83. 3. TheEducational Commission for Foreign Veterinary Graduates (ECFVG) certification Program (http//www.avma.org/education/ecfvg/ecfvg_pp_steps.asp#step2). According to ECFVG requirement, candidates are given four options to provide the ECFVG with proof of ability to communicate in the English language. One option is attaining an overall score of 80 on TOEFL-iBT, with at least a 26 in listening, a 17 in writing, and a 26 in speaking. The other option is that candidates choosing to take the IELTS must take the academic IELTS and obtain a passing score of 6.5 (overall band), with at least a 6.5 in the listening band, a 6.0 in the writing band, and a 7.0 in the speaking band. The third option is for candidates choosing to take the CAEL and must take each subsection of the assessment to attain a passing score of 60 (overall score), with at least a 60 in the listening band, a 50 in the writing band, and a 60 in the speaking band. The fourth option waves candidates who use English in their native country. In order to be eligible for this option a candidate must provide an evidence of at least three years full-time attendance at a secondary (high) school at which the complete language of instruction was English. Acceptable documentation includes a letter directly from school officials stating dates of attendance and verifying that the complete language of instruction was English. So the question is why does NABP applying a different requirement to prove the language proficiency of candidates? We are highly optimistic that the NABP will reconsider its requirements and come up with a better and objective instrument to measure candidates’ capacity to communicate. However, we would like to address the following issues that we strongly believe would help the task force to see the matter comprehensively and appreciate our concerns and problems. First, instead of focusing on a subjective TOEFL-iBT test score of 26 in the speaking section, it would be more realistic to pay more attention to other assessment tools such as the internship programs that scrutinize candidates from different perspectives. It is mandatory that once the candidates pass the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency Examination (FPGEE), they have to pass through an internship program where they must work under the supervision of their preceptors who are licensed pharmacists. We believe the preceptors evaluation of the interns from different perspectives, not only their professional capacities but also other issues such as the ability to communicate would offer better assessment of the candidates. This provides a chance for the candidates to obtain feedbacks and comments right at the spot that would help them make improvements. Second, before and after the internship program, candidates have to pass through a job interview. In this regard, employers are smart and are more than anyone else concerned about the individual’s efficiency in communication. We strongly believe they would not hire someone simply for the sake of hiring. They are there to generate profit by rendering services to the public. They are not there to a pay pension salary for someone who is inefficient. Third, we also believe that as citizens of the US, employers share the concerns of NABP to protect the public’s safety. On top of this, they bear risks of their own. So, we doubt very much that they would compromise the public’s safety and the quality of the service simply to hire a foreign graduate. Hence, they pay much attention and take the maximum precaution before hiring. We also believe that they evaluate the potential employee from different angles and even go beyond evaluating one’s professional knowledge and ability to communicate. From experience, employers use different techniques to evaluate the candidate’s personal qualities, experiences, interpersonal interactions, client handling, crisis and conflict management, communication and organization skills. Lastly, it was repeatedly said by many that the TOEFL-iBT test score of 26 in the speaking section is standardized to be equivalent to that of TSE test score of 50. As you may have the information, the test is about four hour duration with a ten-minute break in between. For many of the test takers, this was found to be very difficult to stay both mentally and physically energetic and focused on a computer screen with all our concentration and power of thinking. By the time we finish the reading section, which we guess are about six, followed by at least thirteen to fifteen questions from each and then the listening section that comprises conversations and various types of lectures, dialogues and monologues, we got exhausted and cannot gather our thoughts. We cannot argue as to whether or not the same questions were administered by ETS for candidates of TSE but it is obvious that there are differences in the organization of the test and testing conditions. Many of the candidates of TOEFL-iBT take the test under very stressful and crowded conditions and also in a bad seating arrangement which compounds the problem and make very difficult for the test takers to gather their attention and concentration without being diverted and distracted with the noises and traffic movements. So the question here is what criteria were employed to standardize these two tests? Did the experts take these factors into consideration when they set the standard? Therefore, we do not see any convincing reasons why the NABP sticks to TOEFL iBT score which is partly based on the individuals’ subjective and yet indirect computer recorded voice assessment. We will leave this judgment to you whether TOEFL iBT score is superior to employers’ and preceptors face-to-face evaluation and internship assessments. In our opinion, by all means, the later is superior to measuring competence from different dimensions and are sufficient enough to complement any reasonable language test results such us the ones used by the CGFNS and MCSBN to measure nurses that provide services to patients at the same setting and even in a more interactive environment that requires high degree of fluency and commendable capacity of language proficiency. Looking forward to hearing positive results, we remain. Respectfully submitted, Petitioner’s full name EE# Address ___________________________ __________ _____________________________ ___________________________ __________ ______________________________ ___________________________ __________ ______________________________

Hi All, Every time I read commets in this forum, it is all the same. What I mean is that we are repeating the problems in different ways as if we have difficulty of understanding the problem we are asking the board to address. In my opinion, it isn't upto us to request 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 to be the passing score for speaking. We can only inform the board 26 is too high and too arbitrary to achieve for most of us and there are so many problems with the setting of the testing center and scoring. Knok, I don't think it is logical for us to request the Board to interview candidates or send them the recording of some candidates. Why don't we focus on their points and comments on the September Newsletter and ready to respond in person if they request us to be in their meeting? We believe that the comments on thei September Newsletter are inaccuarte, distortions and lacked substance. We have a strong case to argue against their claim. If everyone is ready, we are going to post the letter soon and after some feedback from participants, we will forward it to the board and continue to follow up with them. I hope Knok will respond to this as quickly as possible as time is running out. We shall preavail against all odds. Yahak