With all due respect I would disagree that they had never been educated, as you have said experience is a great educator and interestingly some people who learn that way do not realise that not everyone has their insight to learn the lessons they do, to enable them to feel their way through those situations, which if you analysis it is usually them employing a natural feel/ability for something, backed up by extensive practical first hand experience and observation.

I think you maybe meant that they had never been educated in that area within a formal educational environment ?

Not sure what you are saying here. Did I say they where not?

The case study I am thinking of, may have been based on real cases, but the scope of the questioning about it was not applicable to the real world.

if I recall correclty (which I may not have 100%), it asked what FIVE questions she would ask to establish a method of behavioural change.

Given the case as I recall it, I think it would be impossible and dangerous to attempt to identify a solution given the answer to only five questions.
Given that diet, genetics, relevant socialisation, owner response, problem history, changes in environment, changes of diet, changes of home structure, the reaction of source stimulation to dog response, and other things are pretty much ALL relevant in all behaviour and several other things as well, and that is already more than FIVE! Given that , then I think trying to assess any behaviour remod with five questions is limiting, potentially dangerous and not at all "real world".

That is one of my concerns with education. That the consequencies of such limiting approaches are not understood by the student. And poor habits are developed without consequences being learnt from.

If I louse up with a behaviour case, then I learn from it - I don't get the results I expect or desire, I have to reconsider and adjust my approach and learn from that. ! If I louse up with a theoretical behaviour case then I lose some educational credence, but may still learn the WRONG THING.

Not sure what you are saying here. Did I say they where not?

The case study I am thinking of, may have been based on real cases, but the scope of the questioning about it was not applicable to the real world.

if I recall correclty (which I may not have 100%), it asked what FIVE questions she would ask to establish a method of behavioural change.

Given the case as I recall it, I think it would be impossible and dangerous to attempt to identify a solution given the answer to only five questions.
Given that diet, genetics, relevant socialisation, owner response, problem history, changes in environment, changes of diet, changes of home structure, the reaction of source stimulation to dog response, and other things are pretty much ALL relevant in all behaviour and several other things as well, and that is already more than FIVE! Given that , then I think trying to assess any behaviour remod with five questions is limiting, potentially dangerous and not at all "real world".

That is one of my concerns with education. That the consequencies of such limiting approaches are not understood by the student. And poor habits are developed without consequences being learnt from.

If I louse up with a behaviour case, then I learn from it - I don't get the results I expect or desire, I have to reconsider and adjust my approach and learn from that. ! If I louse up with a theoretical behaviour case then I lose some educational credence, but may still learn the WRONG THING.

It seems to me that this is an exercise in fine tuning questioning skills, open and closed questioning.
If you can gain information and locate the potential cause in fewer questions then you have better questioning skills.

BTW does your assistant know you constantly use her as an example in your arguments?
I applaud her for doing it the right way!

Well it's happening in the teaching profession. Now experience is not enough. Your level has to be assessed. Some older teachers are shouting from the sidelines because they have not progressed and can not deal with the newer precedures.
Others keep their heads down, complete the regulated courses and progress.
Courses are a necessary way of checking progress. That doesn't take away experience or working with a specialist.

Yep she does. Of course.

AS for the "right way". I applaud you for having your own view.

Personally, I think the "right way" can only be judged on results. Be interesting to know how many "successfull" trainers or behaviour folks are paper qualified or not. And what they would put their success down to!

It is very easy to get into your own comfort zone and stagnate. You need the rigour of peer evaluation occasionally at least.

Be interesting to know how many "successfull" trainers or behaviour folks are paper qualified or not. And what they would put their success down to!

It used to be an associate member I think, rather than provisional anyway, presumably they would also also explain to clients that they cannot usually claim on their insurance unless they see a full member of APBC, (or CFBA, or CCAB, for Petplan at least).

But my point was the Catch 22 about the CCAB and the requirement for supervision, (and acceptance for that supervision), by existing CCABs to get to full APBC membership.

How does graduated membership alter that, once the regulations change?