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]
No comments:
Post a Comment