permaculture

["Michael Kramer" <MKramer@hawaii.rr.com>]

With all due respect, 72 hours can be divided up in many ways, and I've seen
and taught successful versions of the certification course in a variety of
formats, including a 9-day course, for 9 x 8 hours/day = 72 hours. As
teachers of biodiversity, we permies should embrace as many varieties of
certification formats as possible in order to serve our diverse students. In
my 15 years of teaching permaculture, the certification course has been run
as two-week, three-week, four-weekend, and semester-long versions, just to
name a few examples. While a 14-day residential course might be considered
"best practice" by many, this just isn't practical for many people, and it
certainly isn't the only way to do it.

I would also like to point out that there are no rules about certification
at the moment because there are no standards or people to enforce them. We
have the equivalent of "gentlemen's agreements" (excuse the gender
exclusivity) to teach in the way we were taught, but this is a choice. For
the 72-hour course as it was originally designed is certainly not the only
way to imagine one could become a certified permaculturist, and I mean this
in terms of both format and content. Why 72 hours? Why not 144? or 288? We
may see the logic of continuing the same model of the course just because it
was how we were taught or we believe it accomplishes our objectives of
assuring that students leave the course "knowing" permaculture, but there
are many other paths to such an outcome.  The course is heavily weighted
towards land-based design of agricultural systems, but this is an arbitrary
focus and more an example of the application of permaculture design in a
particular dimension of human experience, and not the most important realm
to some. Would a course that focused primarily on invisible structures
suffice to earn certification? I think it could, and it might be much more
attractive a course for certain populations in certain locales.

I would also like to point out (again) that in the various Permaculture
Teacher Trainings I have facilitated, I have encountered many "certified"
permaculturists who barely grasped permaculture design - they were far more
literate on the techniques and strategies than the design process itself. So
perhaps this is also evidence of the need for a different, and perhaps more
protracted, certification process. I'm not sure how much people truly digest
in these intensive 72-hour courses no matter what the format, even though
I've seen quite clearly that way people are blown away by the experience
itself.

My real point is, we must think like the guild, and plant a forest full of
nutrient-rich educational experiences which "certify" people to apply
permaculture in whatever ways mean something to our students. Just as there
are many varieties of Architecture or Planning 101 in universities
throughout the world, permaculture deserves the same respect. How ironic
that our philosophy of polyculture is often taught in a monocultural way.

Michael Kramer
Permaculture Teacher Trainer
Investment Advisor


> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:17:23 -0700
> From: Scott Pittman <pci@permaculture-inst.org>
While I support the spead of permaculture throught teaching, it streches
> credulity to offer a "9" day certification course. Why not a three day
> certification course? The course cannot not properly be covered in 9
> days and that is why certification courses have always been different
> than introduction, or specialty courses that do not offer certification.
>
> If you are offering the true "Certification" course then one must follow
> the established curriculum and class hours, at a minimum. The 9 day
> course you are offering may well be a great course offering all that you
> advertise but it should not issue the certificate of permaculture design.
>
> Scott Pittman
> Permaculture Institute