From a design educator on SB 1312, NCIDQ and her students

[be sure to read the COMMENTS to this post]

A design educator wrote to me the following:

“Brent,

The problem is with WORK EXPERIENCE (not the two, three or four years education). As of Jan. 1, ‘08 WORK EXPERIENCE has to be under a “registered”, “licensed” interior designer, or an “NCIDQ certificate holder” or an “architect who practices interior design”.

All our students who are graduating this year (and beyond) WILL HAVE TO find their work experience with one of the above.

In our present ‘down’ economy – - which is predicted by experts to be down for at least 18-24 months, hiring is slow at best, and many firms, I am told, are eliminating jobs altogether.

SO NOW, under SB 1312, our students who have spent many years and small fortunes studying interior design, will have to take the NCIDQ that doesn’t test them on Title 24 and so they will have to learn that which doesn’t even apply to them in California, that is, IF THEY ARE ELIGIBLE to take the exam, when the ONLY WORK EXPERIENCE they can obtain before applying HAS TO BE UNDER one of the above-listed professionals.

This legislation really burns me up. It is so unfair to our students . I do believe that many of our graduates will have a VERY DIFFICULT TIME getting the so-called “right kind” of experience that it will take them many years before they will be able to become “Registered” under SB 1312.

I fear that some of our graduating students who are not able to get jobs will start working for themselves and they will unknowingly violate the RID law and face government fines. And even if they did work for themselves or found good work with some talented and experienced designers, NONE OF IT WOULD COUNT towards their NCIDQ exam.”

AIA-California does NOT want SB 1312

[be sure to read comments below]

AIA California Council (AIACC):
Mark Christian, Director of Legislative Affairs for the AIACC, recently said on the
prospect of this issue dissipating in the near future: “We are finding the proponents of
interior design regulation to be well-financed and very determined. They hired a highly
regarded lobbying firm and chose a respected and effective state senator to carry their
bill. Even if they are not successful this year, we have no doubt they will modify their
arguments and try again.”
The AIACC is currently working very closely with the interior design community,
California Architects Board, California Building Officials, and others opposed to S.B.
1312 and has worked to educate others on the effect of the bill. They have met with
several state senators, legislative staff, executive staff, and appointees to explain why
S.B. 1312 is not needed and are currently implementing a targeted letter writing campaign.
- – Source: http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/ID%20addendum1.pdf

Comment: I just have to laugh over the “insanity” of IDCC/ASID/IIDA to introduce a Practice Act UNDER the California Architects Board. Hahaha, — They don’t want interior designers on their board. They never have, and they never will. What are you guys smoking?!?!??

“My school is better than their school…”

I’ve “appalled” a certain hard-line educator who has a “stake” in ASID, NCIDQ, IIDA and IDEC.

Her school is “and has been proudly CIDA (FIDER) accredited for almost 25 years; we offer a BFA in interior design”

She further wrote that the community college programs that teach interior design are “not in as much depth as a four-year program.”

And she wrote “It is NCIDQ’s mission “…to protect the health, life safety and welfare of the public by establishing standards of competence in the practice of interior design”.

NCIDQ may be an okay exam, BUT IT DOES NOT AND NEVER HAS COVERED CALIFORNIA CODES.