|
Post by wingnut on Jan 22, 2016 14:17:49 GMT -5
Welcome jagvet!
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jan 22, 2016 17:53:30 GMT -5
Hello, everyone! I have finally registered after eight months of "lurking." I was a 2013 aol applicant, 5-point vet, did not appeal, Aug/Sept OPM, NOR 11/15, ODAR interview 12/15, and didn't get a call last week. No one was hired in my cities (narrow GAL because of family responsibilities). I am hoping (a) that am not a top-3 applicant that they don't want, and (b) that one or more of my cities get in the next round. Thanks to all of you heroes for keeping this forum going. If I had not found you through a Google search after getting that first mysterious email from OPM in my spam box last June, I would have been lost in this maze. I first applied to OPM around 1993, so this is a long-time career goal. So here's my question: Has ODAR ever had concurrent training for new ALJs, such as FC and Baltimore? From what y'all have said, SSA will have to be creative to meet the 250 goal. Welcome aboard.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 22, 2016 18:48:24 GMT -5
So here's my question: Has ODAR ever had concurrent training for new ALJs, such as FC and Baltimore? From what y'all have said, SSA will have to be creative to meet the 250 goal. To add to what Pixie said, I think the real issue with being creative like this is getting ALJs to come out and help train. There is no set training cadre that repeatedly trains people doing nothing but training. The trainers are ALJs who take time out of their hearing schedules to train the new ALJs and do the refresher trainings. They are also still responsible for their hearings and things do tend to pile up while they are away. So it is a real blessing to the agency to have these wonderful folks who are willing to do this.
|
|
|
Post by Youngblood Priest on Jan 23, 2016 13:41:31 GMT -5
Today I was told by an extremely reliable source that: 1. 51 candidates selected. 2. Offers still going out. 3. 3 people declined the offers. 4. There is a tentative training period of 7/18/2016 to 8/12/2016 for a subsequent class (which would start in their offices on 6/27/2016). What my source did not have is intel on whether there will be a second class hired from the current set of certs to start before the 6/27 class. Has there been any independent confirmation of #2 (i.e., that one or more offers were made during the week of Jan. 18-22)? Thanks for posting that intel, gary.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jan 23, 2016 13:52:57 GMT -5
Yes, I received one confirmation by PM that an offer was made on Jan. 19. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 23, 2016 23:05:55 GMT -5
Thanks, JudgeRatty. I think using regular judges rather than training cadre is better for training, and agree that it would be self-defeating to keep pulling them off their benches to do it. We may be stuck with a narrow tunnel through which everyone has to squeeze.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Jan 24, 2016 6:09:19 GMT -5
This is in response to several posts on this thread. I was surprised to find out during training that there is no professional training group and especially that the ALJ trainers don't have their workload reduced when they are training. It was disconcerting to have our trainers working on the computers in the back of the room, keeping up with their caseload, during class.
Since I have never been concerned about anonymity on this board, it's okay with me if those who follow the board at FC know what I am saying about our training. I have trained and taught lawyers for 20 years. The ALJ training needs some rethinking. It needs to be geared towards more than one learning style. It needs to be revamped so that there is repetition and small-group reinforcement of large-group objectives. In fact, there's so much that could be improved that it's not worth mentioning it all here.
Our trainers were almost uniformly wonderful and always willing to spend extra time at night and during lunch with individuals to go over the material previously presented. That should not have been necessary, but it was appreciated.
The ALJ training was not always adequate and not always focused on what was important for us to learn. It was not always presented in a way that made it easy to grasp. An organization that spends so many millions on training every year ought to hire professional trainers, at least to develop and oversee the training. There is a lot more to developing good training programs than simply following the sequential highway.
|
|
|
Post by Alexandersdad on Jan 24, 2016 10:56:41 GMT -5
I concur with Pixie, JudgeRatty, and lizdarcy. Training by experienced ALJs is critical to success in this challenging mission. The informal training should start with each of us even before formal training begins. I report in 2 weeks, but I have already scheduled meetings prior to my report date with several ALJs and staff personnel to ask their advice, not only from the perspective of the functional side of being an ALJ, but also the more subtle, yet critical, aspects of leadership, presence, efficiency, and developing good relationships with fellow ALJs and staff. Finally, I will seek their counsel on the philosophy of how they approach working with appellants and their attorneys while ensuring neutrality and fair consideration of their important issues. I know I have much to learn, but I also feel comfort in knowing there are many ALJs and staff personnel there that are willing to share their experience and wisdom with me and other new ALJs. I will certainly listen and learn.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jan 24, 2016 12:23:24 GMT -5
While I usually agree with Lizdarcy on most topics, I can't agree with having professional trainers. Those who do, ought to be the ones who teach.
The agency presents each team leader with a syllabus of what is to be taught, and the topics in that syllabus are divided among the instructors on that team. The team leader is responsible for seeing that each instructor stays on topic and presents the material accurately. So, what the new judge is taught is determined by the agency; the presentation is determined by the instructor. When I was in training as a new judge and when I was an instructor, I felt the materials were on point and were what needed to be taught. There are only four weeks to present a technical area of the law, that may entirely unknown to half of the class.
Being out of the office for a week is like loosing two weeks of work. When we get back, it takes 3 to 4 days to get caught up and one day to prepare for Monday's hearings. The more we can do while in the classroom (at the rear) lessens the trauma of return. Plus, HOCALJs have constant problems back at the office that need to be dealt with. While some require a phone call, many can be discussed by email. I am sorry you found the keyboard chatter distracting, but it is a necessary part of our modern work force.
I would be interested in whether other judges going through the training program find the keyboard chatter to be distracting. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Jan 24, 2016 13:14:00 GMT -5
What I was suggesting was that the training be developed and tracked by at least one and possibly more professional trainers. I don't have a problem with ALJs doing the training, but they should have their caseloads lessened if they are training.
I also think, as I said above, that the syllabus should be revamped from beginning (i.e. the training that begins on your first day in the office) to the end. I did not find a lot of it to be useful, or useful at the time it was presented. There was zero context for those of us who were not insiders.
Most training programs take into account the fact that not everyone learns best the same way. The ALJ training program does not. There is also little time for consolidating learning.
I think the agency should hire a training consultant to take a look at its programs. There's a lot of room for improvement.
All this does not take away from the great ALJ trainers who do as good a job as they can with the material and mandates they are given. I was grateful for their interest and willingness to help us at all times. Also, I am very fortunate to have had an excellent mentor in my H.O., which has made everything so much easier.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 24, 2016 13:19:50 GMT -5
I'm not sure I ever noticed keyboard clacking behind me, and the instructors were right behind me. That said, I was an insider listening to the lectures for nuance and not guzzling from the firehose of knowledge of the sequential highway. I would suggest to future trainees that if you're finding that sort of thing distracting, maybe look into switching seats with someone farther from the trainers' table? I can't imagine anyone having a problem with that so long as you take your name tag with you.
I agree on the benefit of having folks in the trenches teaching the classes. I am in awe of you folks that can keep up with your workload while teaching the noobs the ropes halfway or all the way across the country.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 25, 2016 11:47:51 GMT -5
This is in response to several posts on this thread. I was surprised to find out during training that there is no professional training group and especially that the ALJ trainers don't have their workload reduced when they are training. It was disconcerting to have our trainers working on the computers in the back of the room, keeping up with their caseload, during class. Since I have never been concerned about anonymity on this board, it's okay with me if those who follow the board at FC know what I am saying about our training. I have trained and taught lawyers for 20 years. The ALJ training needs some rethinking. It needs to be geared towards more than one learning style. It needs to be revamped so that there is repetition and small-group reinforcement of large-group objectives. In fact, there's so much that could be improved that it's not worth mentioning it all here. Our trainers were almost uniformly wonderful and always willing to spend extra time at night and during lunch with individuals to go over the material previously presented. That should not have been necessary, but it was appreciated. The ALJ training was not always adequate and not always focused on what was important for us to learn. It was not always presented in a way that made it easy to grasp. An organization that spends so many millions on training every year ought to hire professional trainers, at least to develop and oversee the training. There is a lot more to developing good training programs than simply following the sequential highway. I'm responding to the above post, but first read Pixie's and Lizdarcy's later responses. Lizdarcy: I was 100% behind what you said and I was going to call it the greatest post ever, but I also see Pixie's point, but I also see your explanation about how the two points might not even be a disagreement. So I'll say I agree 89%, that's it's one of the best ever, and add my own 35 cents (inflation). I work in one of the revolving door offices (soon to be a thing of the past - for 2 years) where we constantly train new ALJs only to have them leave right away. I have gone over training materials when some of them had questions. The training HAS to find a way to get better. There are many ways to improve it without removing the influence of experienced ALJs. But not every ALJ is cut out for training, by the way. I have 2 big complaints - complaints not from having sat through the training, obviously, but from having been told by several ALJs their understandings of certain things after arriving from training and after looking at the materials, which are mainly available online. 1) Inconsistency. Several ALJs have complained about getting directly contradictory advice from the experienced ALJs during the informally added-on parts of the presentations. For example, ALJs were told by training ALJs that a particular thing was not a problem at the Appeals Council, and told by the Appeals Council trainers that such a thing was a problem at the Appeals Council. Terminology in the materials is used inconsistently. Almost all of these problems come from informality, which has a place. But there is a difference between the training of fundamental knowledge needed for the job and training about the informal practices that can make the job easier. You must have solid, repetitive structure when forming a base; inconsistency makes a weak foundation for adding stuff. (Warning - at this point I get possibly boringly technical) 2) Inaccuracy. I was asked by a new ALJ for a reference for some RFC language. I prefer to reinforce training by referring back to training materials when I assist people of any job title. It reminds them of self-reliance and the fact that reference materials exist. The first two sources I checked in the training materials were incorrect. They were sloppy. For example, the definition of light work in the training materials (at least the part I found first) referred to lifting 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally. Not to be too nitpicky, but it is OR, not AND. Which is a huge difference. The definition in the book was literally for constant lifting of 10-20 pounds, which is medium work. This can be easily checked against the (wonderful) grid rules handout (upper left corner) for those who doubt me. (Or the RHAJ from the DOL). The training materials did not explain the difference between the regulatory definition and the rulings/grid definition (hopefully that was done orally). In any event, this is till only the background of my story - I would not be upset over a little thing like this. Because I did not want to provide inaccurate information, even from training materials, I sought follow up information from the ALJ. I was literally forced to sit down and had a physical reaction to the information that the ALJ was taught in training that different impairments had different RFCs kind of inherently. For example, if you have diabetes you can only occasionally use near acuity, can only occasionally use foot controls, etc. My questions about relying on the medical evidence to lead directly to the RFC were ... troubling. Another ALJ happened in at that point, and that ALJ had been trained in a different class about a month or two earlier. He explained that, yes, there was a training session where they talked about impairments, made up RFCs in small groups, and then were given the 'correct answer' to RFCs for people, for example, with schizophrenia and a back problem. That is not proper training for an ALJ. I am not an ALJ. But I know that you cannot teach short cuts until you teach the basics. I spend some effort trying to break the new ALJs of a habit of saying "sedentary lifting" as part of an RFC. Or "Sedentary but can lift 20 pounds." SSA Regulations, rulings, and policy cleary indicate that RFC should not be phrased as an exertional category. RFC is, perhaps, the most important aspect of an ALJ decision. Guessing it based on a diagnosis is anathema. So, in summary, I agree with Lizdarcy that it would be awesome if something happened to make training better.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 25, 2016 15:37:07 GMT -5
I feel like I sounded arrogant and nitpicky above, despite trying to give disclaimers. Let me explain the problem with small inaccuracies (or even imprecision). Sometimes people say that disability means unable to work. It is not true that the definition of disability is "unable to work," or even, "unable to do substantial gainful activity." There are many, many people who are disabled either at step three or through application of the grids or other special vocational profiles who "can work," even at substantial gainful activity levels. Using a short-hand like that in a training (in this case, I refer to a recent ODAR training video on closed periods of disability and the concept of medical improvement) confuses people who do not have a solid grounding in what that short-hand is short for (e.g., inability to make a vocational adjustment to substantial gainful activity that exists in significant numbers in the national economy (which is still a bit of a short-hand )). If the ungrounded people then approach the evidence in cases without an understanding of what the issue actually is, they are liable to err, despite their best efforts, in identifying what is important to supporting or undermining whether the claimant should be found disabled. That's why I worry about little details that are parts of definitions that are parts of fundamental concepts that are part of the outcome of the case that is part of a person's life.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 25, 2016 19:32:18 GMT -5
I think that given the time constraints of training, that they do ok. Training in Falls Church is not meant to be an all inclusive finite set of training on every issue. There are SO many nuances to this practice. Training in Falls Church is an "introduction" so to speak to be augmented by mentors, experienced writers who offer their assistance, HOCALJs, reading, researching, and more. Is the training perfect? No way. Got a better idea how to do it? Awesome. Submit the better way in writing. I am sure they would appreciate the ideas. This process is only as good as what we put into it. It's easy to pick apart a process but the harder part is offering a viable cost effective solution.
Propmaster you should volunteer for a training detail albeit for writers since only ALJs train ALJs. But it sounds like you have an interest.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Jan 25, 2016 19:55:07 GMT -5
I think that given the time constraints of training, that they do ok. Training in Falls Church is not meant to be an all inclusive finite set of training on every issue. There are SO many nuances to this practice. Training in Falls Church is an "introduction" so to speak to be augmented by mentors, experienced writers who offer their assistance, HOCALJs, reading, researching, and more. Is the training perfect? No way. Got a better idea how to do it? Awesome. Submit the better way in writing. I am sure they would appreciate the ideas. This process is only as good as what we put into it. It's easy to pick apart a process but the harder part is offering a viable cost effective solution.
Propmaster you should volunteer for a training detail albeit for writers since only ALJs train ALJs. But it sounds like you have an interest. Tigerlaw and Elvis (xxxxJudge) violated your number one rule.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 25, 2016 20:07:38 GMT -5
I think that given the time constraints of training, that they do ok. Training in Falls Church is not meant to be an all inclusive finite set of training on every issue. There are SO many nuances to this practice. Training in Falls Church is an "introduction" so to speak to be augmented by mentors, experienced writers who offer their assistance, HOCALJs, reading, researching, and more. Is the training perfect? No way. Got a better idea how to do it? Awesome. Submit the better way in writing. I am sure they would appreciate the ideas. This process is only as good as what we put into it. It's easy to pick apart a process but the harder part is offering a viable cost effective solution.
Propmaster you should volunteer for a training detail albeit for writers since only ALJs train ALJs. But it sounds like you have an interest. Tigerlaw and Elvis (xxxxJudge) violated your number one rule. LOL! Naw, I don't believe it for a minute. They lurk. They can't stay away. And no doubt at some point someone will say something that will be like honey to a bear and they will not be able to keep silent. LOL! Tiger is just a lot of show, probably from all that trial work. He still cares and watches. Elvis, now he may have a little more stay away stamina than Tiger. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by trickbag on Jan 25, 2016 21:45:43 GMT -5
If it's any comfort to you, propmaster, having sat through the small group discussions you referenced, it was quite clear in the groups that these were samples and by no means a definitive answer or "inherent" RFC. It was supposed to be preceded by a brainstorming type discussion of possible limitations resulting from various conditions. Obviously different trainers might have been more or less clear on that point, but it's hard for me to believe that any experienced judge trainer would have said "these are the answers!" What the trainees understand could of course be something different.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jan 26, 2016 10:17:01 GMT -5
I have had several ALJs hired last year report that they will be doing training in either late May or Early June. I suspect that as much as anything this is the reason that ODAR has delayed hiring so late. They need to make sure that the trainers have time to work their dockets.
I also think that ODAR would like to get back to having more time to move through the process and not rush the interviews and paperwork.
My SWAG is that after NORs are released they will work the transfer list, then request a huge batch of certs, then send out cert emails with a bigger window to respond (maybe even two weeks), then schedule interviews and try and wrap it all up with offers by the middle of May. Whether Murphy steps on their plans or not I can't say. The one thing we (and I definitely include myself in this) always forget is that the unexpected confronts them and slows the process down.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jan 26, 2016 12:28:32 GMT -5
sounds like that could interfere with vacation plans so i will SWAG you are right Gaidan.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jan 26, 2016 12:40:04 GMT -5
If it's any comfort to you, propmaster, having sat through the small group discussions you referenced, it was quite clear in the groups that these were samples and by no means a definitive answer or "inherent" RFC. It was supposed to be preceded by a brainstorming type discussion of possible limitations resulting from various conditions. Obviously different trainers might have been more or less clear on that point, but it's hard for me to believe that any experienced judge trainer would have said "these are the answers!" What the trainees understand could of course be something different. It is comfort. And I totally agree that what the trainees take from a training is not necessarily what the trainers say or intend. One of the things I liked about Lizdarcy's first post was the reference to different learning styles. The first thing I do when mentoring someone is to do a learning style test that takes about 10 seconds. I have found it to be acceptably accurate 100% of the time, although obviously it is an estimate. 1) Ask the person to do a difficult long division problem (it doesn't matter, so you can just use something crazy - 13,579 divided by 32. They will protest, usually, just tell them to do their best, no notes. 2) The answer is irrelevant - you are done before they would get an answer (unless they're a savant or something). 3) Watch their eyes or head (or both) a) Looking up indicates they are a visual learner - they are using the clear space of the ceiling (or sky or whatever) to imagine writing the problem down. b) If they look or turn to the side, they are an aural learner - they are reimagining the problem being presented and the steps being described. c) If they look down, they are a kinesthetic learner - they are envisioning their hands writing the problem out. 4) Tell them they're done so they don't keep working on the problem. Then you know if you will most effectively communicate by giving them reference materials, talking to them, or walking them through the task being trained a few times. Obviously, everyone usually needs some of all of those methods, but little changes (like having them either watch you enter data or doing it themselves) can help the learning process. And for humor people: d) If they look straight at you without immediately giving the answer (i.e., not a savant), they're a sociopath imagining your death for giving them long division to do.
|
|