My favourite walking companion is Tim Kjeldsen. We walk the canals of Birmingham (more sweetly smelling, and less prone to rejoining the sea than those of Venice) and talk about the joys (many) and frustrations (many more) of working on the regulation of the field of the Alexander Technique.
One of the joys is the success Tim had, last year, spending incredible amounts of time and energy in 2007 helping design the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council. This Council (CNHC) is slowly (actually, rather rapidly) taking shape as you can see by reading this http://www.fih.org.uk/what_we_do/regulation/interview_with_the.html
This Council is very likely to be the one we recommend ITM members to join sometime in 2009. We won't be able to force you to join, but it is likely/entirely possible that we will delegate the regulatory functions of our Professional Association to the CNHC.
I recommend that you keep an eye on the CNHC website at http://www.cnhc.org.uk for developments. As a regulator it appears to us to be more sweetly smelling, and less prone to be swamped by the sea, than any other.
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Saturday, 25 October 2008
Understanding STAT I - Standards
The word ‘standard’ has a number of different meanings, which tend to get somewhat mixed up in discussions about Alexander Technique training courses. (Not all meanings of the word ‘standard’ are relevant to what I write, but don’t worry, I won’t flag up or make a song and dance about them.)
STAT members, and their published documents, make statements about 1600 hours being ‘the standard’ for training course - and some STAT-trained teachers are genuinely distressed and worried that ITM’s training course might dilute the standards of the profession because it has less than 1600 contact hours. We try to soften their distress and worry, in a number of ways, assuring them that we have high standards of our own. But the word 'standard(s)' means different things. And as you get to meet STAT-trained colleagues in the years to come, you may need to make it clear which meanings of the word 'standard' are in play in such discussions.
The four meanings I want to focus on are:
[1] 'Standard' meaning ‘a level of quality’
In the dictionaries I’ve looked at, this is the first meaning that is listed, and it is probably the first meaning that comes to mind when people hear the word used. In our exams - both written, and teaching - we measure the degree of competence of the teacher-trainee in their knowledge, understanding, and practice of the Alexander Technique. If someone meets the standards of the exams, they qualify as a teacher. In this sense, 'standard' means a qualitative benchmark. Trained examiners can see a passing performance, or read a passing exam paper, and can explain why examinees pass or fail with reference to these benchmarks. In our regulatory discussions, we have referred to this meaning as 'output standard' - it is a measure of the output of training. Our (ITM's) four written exams, and practical teaching exam at the end of the course, are qualitative measures of knowledge, understanding, and practical skills which STAT training courses typically do not have.
[2] Standard meaning ‘a unit of measurement’
'Standard' can also mean a unit of measurement, or an agreed specification which has wide acceptance in an industry or profession. The STAT standards of course-length (1600 hours), weekly rhythm of study (typically four half-days per week, each of four hours in length over eleven/thirteen week terms), and of the relationship between practice and theory (80% practical) are specifications which apply to STAT training courses. These specifications are quantitative, rather than qualitative: they have to do with duration as a property of the training course calendar and timetable, rather than demonstrable skills of the graduate teacher. It is STAT’s experience that graduates of 1600 hour training courses are competent to teach the STAT way - though there are dissenting voices, even within STAT, which would dispute this. In our regulatory discussions we have referred to this meaning as 'input' standards.
[3] Standard meaning ‘a behavioural requirement’
This sense of 'standard' is perhaps the least familiar, but it is important to us, as it could be a component of our Continuing Professional Development programme. The Health Professions Council has recently published standards for its CPD programmes, and these are neither qualitative benchmarks, nor quantitative specifications - they are requirements (labelled standards) which are worded like this ‘You must maintain a continuous, up-to-date and accurate record of their CPD activities’, and ‘You must present a written profile containing evidence of their CPD upon request’.
[4] Standard meaning ‘average’, ‘normal’, or ‘usual’
Lastly there is the meaning of 'standard' as ‘the most usual’ or ‘the normal’ this is standard in the sense of (American) ‘regular’. In the hotel industry this is where ‘standard-room’ means a normal room, at a normal price. STAT courses are standard in this sense, because there are more of them, and they are the norm.
So if you meet a STAT teacher who objects to your ITM training background, and who says ‘STAT is the standard’ or ‘Your ITM standards are inferior to our standards’ you should smile sweetly at them and ask ‘Which sense of the word standard did you have in mind exactly?’
STAT members, and their published documents, make statements about 1600 hours being ‘the standard’ for training course - and some STAT-trained teachers are genuinely distressed and worried that ITM’s training course might dilute the standards of the profession because it has less than 1600 contact hours. We try to soften their distress and worry, in a number of ways, assuring them that we have high standards of our own. But the word 'standard(s)' means different things. And as you get to meet STAT-trained colleagues in the years to come, you may need to make it clear which meanings of the word 'standard' are in play in such discussions.
The four meanings I want to focus on are:
[1] 'Standard' meaning ‘a level of quality’
In the dictionaries I’ve looked at, this is the first meaning that is listed, and it is probably the first meaning that comes to mind when people hear the word used. In our exams - both written, and teaching - we measure the degree of competence of the teacher-trainee in their knowledge, understanding, and practice of the Alexander Technique. If someone meets the standards of the exams, they qualify as a teacher. In this sense, 'standard' means a qualitative benchmark. Trained examiners can see a passing performance, or read a passing exam paper, and can explain why examinees pass or fail with reference to these benchmarks. In our regulatory discussions, we have referred to this meaning as 'output standard' - it is a measure of the output of training. Our (ITM's) four written exams, and practical teaching exam at the end of the course, are qualitative measures of knowledge, understanding, and practical skills which STAT training courses typically do not have.
[2] Standard meaning ‘a unit of measurement’
'Standard' can also mean a unit of measurement, or an agreed specification which has wide acceptance in an industry or profession. The STAT standards of course-length (1600 hours), weekly rhythm of study (typically four half-days per week, each of four hours in length over eleven/thirteen week terms), and of the relationship between practice and theory (80% practical) are specifications which apply to STAT training courses. These specifications are quantitative, rather than qualitative: they have to do with duration as a property of the training course calendar and timetable, rather than demonstrable skills of the graduate teacher. It is STAT’s experience that graduates of 1600 hour training courses are competent to teach the STAT way - though there are dissenting voices, even within STAT, which would dispute this. In our regulatory discussions we have referred to this meaning as 'input' standards.
[3] Standard meaning ‘a behavioural requirement’
This sense of 'standard' is perhaps the least familiar, but it is important to us, as it could be a component of our Continuing Professional Development programme. The Health Professions Council has recently published standards for its CPD programmes, and these are neither qualitative benchmarks, nor quantitative specifications - they are requirements (labelled standards) which are worded like this ‘You must maintain a continuous, up-to-date and accurate record of their CPD activities’, and ‘You must present a written profile containing evidence of their CPD upon request’.
[4] Standard meaning ‘average’, ‘normal’, or ‘usual’
Lastly there is the meaning of 'standard' as ‘the most usual’ or ‘the normal’ this is standard in the sense of (American) ‘regular’. In the hotel industry this is where ‘standard-room’ means a normal room, at a normal price. STAT courses are standard in this sense, because there are more of them, and they are the norm.
So if you meet a STAT teacher who objects to your ITM training background, and who says ‘STAT is the standard’ or ‘Your ITM standards are inferior to our standards’ you should smile sweetly at them and ask ‘Which sense of the word standard did you have in mind exactly?’
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
The kinaesthetic effect of latte-ness
[NB The opinions expressed in this, and all other postings in this blog, are my personal opinions, and do not represent ITM policy.]
It is sometimes said that because the Alexander Technique is all about 'regulating the self ' we don't, or shouldn't, need institutional regulation. After all, the argument goes, practising the AT makes teachers better human beings, more in command of themselves, and able to inhibit - better able to stop wrong things from happening. Although you might get a roomful of Alexander teachers nodding in agreement at this, this is the kind of thinking that should set alarm bells ringing, and red lights flashing.
Many groups in the world believe that they are special cases, and that they therefore do not require scrutiny by regulatory agencies, because they believe themselves to be immune to the failings that afflict other human beings. But brief consideration of recent history should indicate how mistaken this view is. Catholic priests are bound by the ten commandments plus vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience - but that hasn't stopped some of them indulging in abusive sexual behaviour with children in their care. Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic oath ('Never do your patient any harm...') but some have harmed, indeed murdered their patients.
Ah yes, you might say, but it's just the very few - a very small fraction of one per cent of the total number - who are a problem, so we don't need the bureaucracy, the outside interference, that independent regulation requires. But let me tell you about my first Alexander teacher.
In our first lessons he had given myself, Estella my wife, and a number of other people wonderful Alexander experiences. I floated around the city (we were working overseas, the other side of the world at the time), with an extreme case of the 'kinaesthetic effect of lightness' for a couple of weeks. It was such a good feeling, that I attributed it to a particularly nice (also) first experience of cafe latte ('kinaesthetic effect of latte-ness') that I had about the same time as my first lesson. Then I reasoned that as Estella had not had the cafe latte experience, but she was feeling great as well, it was probably something to do with the Alexander work.
After our second lessons with him however, it became clear that he was taking advantage of the female pupils he was teaching. Bad news. We cancelled future arrangements with him (we had hosted his visits to our city, and found him premises and students) and we complained to his professional association. This was twenty years ago, and they wrote back apologetically saying that they could not pursue our complaint further, because it would be a case of our word against his, and besides the distance between where we were and their head-office made conducting enquiries impractical.
Three points arise from this experience. First, despite the abusive nature of our early experiences of an Alexander teacher, the power of the Alexander work was such that two of us are now (twenty years later) teachers of the Alexander Technique - so you could argue that he was a great professional. However, we think it regrettable that he is still practising (and, we hear, in much the same way), and we wish that his professional association had had the resources then, twenty years ago, to hear our complaint and to remove him from the register.
Second, this incident illustrates the fact that it is the practitioner who needs to be regulated, not the Alexander Technique itself. The Alexander Technique is not itself dangerous, the potentially 'dangerous' component in the situation are the teachers who are, in a one-to-one situation, in a position to take advantage of pupils - therefore pupils need some protection.
Third, however small a proportion of the total population of Alexander Teachers this person is, he will be for an unknown number of pupils be the first - and in all probability the last - Alexander Teacher that they have. Because many of them, like a number of our friends who were pupils for the first time along with us, will be put off doing any further Alexander work because of his behaviour.
It is sometimes said that because the Alexander Technique is all about 'regulating the self ' we don't, or shouldn't, need institutional regulation. After all, the argument goes, practising the AT makes teachers better human beings, more in command of themselves, and able to inhibit - better able to stop wrong things from happening. Although you might get a roomful of Alexander teachers nodding in agreement at this, this is the kind of thinking that should set alarm bells ringing, and red lights flashing.
Many groups in the world believe that they are special cases, and that they therefore do not require scrutiny by regulatory agencies, because they believe themselves to be immune to the failings that afflict other human beings. But brief consideration of recent history should indicate how mistaken this view is. Catholic priests are bound by the ten commandments plus vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience - but that hasn't stopped some of them indulging in abusive sexual behaviour with children in their care. Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic oath ('Never do your patient any harm...') but some have harmed, indeed murdered their patients.
Ah yes, you might say, but it's just the very few - a very small fraction of one per cent of the total number - who are a problem, so we don't need the bureaucracy, the outside interference, that independent regulation requires. But let me tell you about my first Alexander teacher.
In our first lessons he had given myself, Estella my wife, and a number of other people wonderful Alexander experiences. I floated around the city (we were working overseas, the other side of the world at the time), with an extreme case of the 'kinaesthetic effect of lightness' for a couple of weeks. It was such a good feeling, that I attributed it to a particularly nice (also) first experience of cafe latte ('kinaesthetic effect of latte-ness') that I had about the same time as my first lesson. Then I reasoned that as Estella had not had the cafe latte experience, but she was feeling great as well, it was probably something to do with the Alexander work.
After our second lessons with him however, it became clear that he was taking advantage of the female pupils he was teaching. Bad news. We cancelled future arrangements with him (we had hosted his visits to our city, and found him premises and students) and we complained to his professional association. This was twenty years ago, and they wrote back apologetically saying that they could not pursue our complaint further, because it would be a case of our word against his, and besides the distance between where we were and their head-office made conducting enquiries impractical.
Three points arise from this experience. First, despite the abusive nature of our early experiences of an Alexander teacher, the power of the Alexander work was such that two of us are now (twenty years later) teachers of the Alexander Technique - so you could argue that he was a great professional. However, we think it regrettable that he is still practising (and, we hear, in much the same way), and we wish that his professional association had had the resources then, twenty years ago, to hear our complaint and to remove him from the register.
Second, this incident illustrates the fact that it is the practitioner who needs to be regulated, not the Alexander Technique itself. The Alexander Technique is not itself dangerous, the potentially 'dangerous' component in the situation are the teachers who are, in a one-to-one situation, in a position to take advantage of pupils - therefore pupils need some protection.
Third, however small a proportion of the total population of Alexander Teachers this person is, he will be for an unknown number of pupils be the first - and in all probability the last - Alexander Teacher that they have. Because many of them, like a number of our friends who were pupils for the first time along with us, will be put off doing any further Alexander work because of his behaviour.
Saturday, 11 October 2008
The separation of Regulation and Representation
The joke about homeopaths given at the end of my first blog was delivered by the chairman of a public event at which 20 complementary healthcare professions were represented. It marked a failure on my part - I didn't give the right ITM response. I should have asked for nineteen additional jokes - one for each of the other professions represented. [Darn!]
Which leads me to wonder what jokes we could tell 'against' Alexander Teachers. Here are two attempts, in the form of question-and-answer riddles. At the end of this posting, there is another riddle - which I think is really clever, and which I hope will absolve me of the failure I mentioned above. But please read the central section on regulation and representation first!
Q. What's the difference between a SATNAV and an Alexander Teacher?
A. The SATNAV gives better directions.
Q. Why are Alexander Teachers such good pick-pockets?
A. Because they are so light-fingered.
[If you have others, please email them to me!]
Regulation vs Representation
Another key principle in the regulatory process is that regulation is separate from representation. This means that the professional associations to which we belong (ATI, ITM, PAAT, and STAT) should not run the processes of regulation. This principle follows on from the principle mentioned in my first posting, that of protection of the public. It is not acceptable for a group of professionals, however trustworthy a reputation they have, to regulate themselves. Doctors should not regulate doctors, Alexander teachers should not regulate Alexander teachers. The reasons may be obvious, but they are worth spelling out.
When it comes to making judgements about whether a fellow professional has transgressed in some way, those making the judgements may actually be over-considerate, or may be perceived to be over-considerate, of their fellow professional who is under investigation. They may be inclined to harbour feelings of understanding for the teacher under investigation which might out-weigh their judgments of whether or not the teacher is guilty of wrong-doing. They might feel 'There, but for the grace of God, go I.' Or, they may be perceived, by outsiders - the public, and other stakeholders - to have been vulnerable to feeling such sentiments as they reached their judgements.
So, in the regulatory process we are designing, there will be a majority of lay-people involved, who will take advice from our profession (where for example a complaint is made against an Alexander teacher), but the judgement will be made by a panel of independents.
So what is the role of our professional associations in all this? Well at present, our ITM regulation team of Don, myself, and Tim Kjeldsen are helping design the regulatory structures, and when they are set up, we shall be co-operating with the other Alexander Technique professional associations [ATI, STAT, PAAT] to offer advice, when necessary, to the regulator.Which leads me to wonder what jokes we could tell 'against' Alexander Teachers. Here are two attempts, in the form of question-and-answer riddles. At the end of this posting, there is another riddle - which I think is really clever, and which I hope will absolve me of the failure I mentioned above. But please read the central section on regulation and representation first!
Q. What's the difference between a SATNAV and an Alexander Teacher?
A. The SATNAV gives better directions.
Q. Why are Alexander Teachers such good pick-pockets?
A. Because they are so light-fingered.
[If you have others, please email them to me!]
Regulation vs Representation
Another key principle in the regulatory process is that regulation is separate from representation. This means that the professional associations to which we belong (ATI, ITM, PAAT, and STAT) should not run the processes of regulation. This principle follows on from the principle mentioned in my first posting, that of protection of the public. It is not acceptable for a group of professionals, however trustworthy a reputation they have, to regulate themselves. Doctors should not regulate doctors, Alexander teachers should not regulate Alexander teachers. The reasons may be obvious, but they are worth spelling out.
When it comes to making judgements about whether a fellow professional has transgressed in some way, those making the judgements may actually be over-considerate, or may be perceived to be over-considerate, of their fellow professional who is under investigation. They may be inclined to harbour feelings of understanding for the teacher under investigation which might out-weigh their judgments of whether or not the teacher is guilty of wrong-doing. They might feel 'There, but for the grace of God, go I.' Or, they may be perceived, by outsiders - the public, and other stakeholders - to have been vulnerable to feeling such sentiments as they reached their judgements.
So, in the regulatory process we are designing, there will be a majority of lay-people involved, who will take advice from our profession (where for example a complaint is made against an Alexander teacher), but the judgement will be made by a panel of independents.
Our professional associations will retain their representative functions - they are (and will remain) organisations to which we belong, which run summer-schools, which run continuing professional development activities (Teacher Training Workshops), they cuddle us, they mother us, they support us. Precisely because of the cuddling, mothering, and supporting they disqualify themselves from sitting in judgement.
In the unfortunate case where one of us might be brought to a hearing in front of the regulator, it would be the function of your professional association to support you and advise you through the process.
KEY PRINCIPLE - The Separation of Regulation and Representation.
Final riddle
Question: What is Don's second favourite question?
Answer: What is Don's favourite question?
[Think about it]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)