Things start out as hopes and end up as habits.
— Lillian Hellman
The other day, a dear Feldenkrais friend and colleague marveled at how easy it is to take a nearby teacher training in Europe. If there isn’t one happening in your town, then you have the best chance ever of finding one in your country or, at least, the one next door.
I might be exaggerating a bit, but this isn’t hyperbole. In April, I will teach at the Feldenkrais teacher training (FTT) in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia. Then, in August, I will be the trainer at the program in Levico Terme, a small town in northern Italy. Indeed, there are over fifty current accredited courses in Europe, with 14 of them in Germany alone.
Please don’t take my word for it. (If you decide to verify my math, please check the European Training Accreditation Board (EuroTAB) and the German Training Accreditation Board (DTAB), which has been in operation for the past ten years.)
The Feldenkrais Guild of North America (FGNA) lists only nine accredited FTTs in the USA, one in Mexico, and none currently in Canada. These figures starkly contrast with those in Europe, which boasts well over fifty current accredited courses, with 14 of them in Germany alone. Despite North America’s larger population, we have fewer than one-fifth as many programs here.
Considering the growth of other somatic approaches, in general, and somatic experiencing and other trauma-informed approaches, in particular, the precipitous decline in FTT programs since the turn of the century is disturbing and worrisome.
One significant issue contributing to the downturn in FTTs is the increasing regulation of post-secondary, non-academic vocational training in the US. This escalating level of regulation is a critical factor in the decline in the number of FTTs.
Over the past three or four decades, state legislatures have created workforce development laws and bureaucracies to regulate non-degree granting programs that prepare people for new vocations. These regulations, designed to protect consumers from misleading promotions, low-quality instruction, and loss of tuition paid should a program fold, require extensive vetting.
The approval processes necessitate proof of financial stability, truth in advertising, curriculum and faculty review, and a guarantee of student rights, all of which are valuable and, given the fly-by-night nature of so many programs, crucial. The charges to apply for and maintain certification — application fees, annual renewal costs, compliance audits, surety bond requirements, etc. — provide another source of tax revenue for the state while creating considerable added expenses for training programs.
When it comes to accredited FTTs, most of the certification requirements are redundant. What’s worse, though, is that, depending on the state, the approval process ranges from incredibly involved, time-consuming, and burdensome to severe and onerous. One FTT hired someone who worked half-time for nearly a year to complete the state’s requirements. An unaccredited “Feldenkrais-adjacent” program learned a hard lesson when authorities discovered their attempt to circumvent the law. The administrative overhead isn’t over once a program has become; states demand various degrees of ongoing data collection, reporting, and oversight to maintain certification.
Given the immense dedication and perseverance required to establish and run an FTT, I admire my colleagues who have successfully met all the governmental and administrative requirements. They prove that, despite the bureaucratic red tape, it is not impossible to establish new training programs, and their efforts are a testament to the strength and resilience of our community.
Feldenkrais insisted that there should be no prerequisite for enrolling in the professional training programs he established and directed. During the Amherst training, Moshe declared that he didn’t know who would become a good teacher and explained that this was his reason for excluding anyone based on their background. For example, one of my classmates was a blacksmith, and several of us were still in college.
While a commendable and stalwart democratic intention, continuing Moshe’s optimistic open-door policy means that states classify FTTs as entry-level vocational training. In the regulatory environment across the United States, this institutionalized habit imposes an unnecessary and detrimental limitation on the future of our profession.
One reason somatic practices are proliferating is that they offer postgraduate training. The organizers of these programs are no more dedicated, driven, and diligent than those providing entry-level vocational training; these programs only accept participants who already have a profession. Instead, they are preparing an increasing number of teachers and practitioners by requiring applicants to training programs to already have a professional certification. They legally avoid the organizational and financial burdens imposed by vocational training regulations across the US.
It’s about time we acknowledged and accepted the current political situation, which is why I am advocating for change. Let’s start requiring trainees to have an existing profession before becoming Feldenkrais teachers. This small change is necessary to revitalize FTTs, grow the profession, and strengthen our community. The urgency of this situation cannot be overstated; we must act now to ensure the future of Moshe’s method.
SnapwiresSnaps took the photo at the top of today's post; I found it on www.pixabay.com.
Your thoughts?
Please let us know your perspective! Add your comments, reactions, suggestions, ideas, etc., by first logging in to your Mind in Motion account and then clicking here.
Commenting on blog posts is available to anyone with a Mind in Motion Online account.
- Join in by getting your free account, which gives you access to the e-book edition of Articulating Changes (Larry’s now-classic Master’s thesis), ATM® lessons, and more — all at no charge whatsoever.
- To find out more and sign up, please click here.
- Want to share this blog post with a friend? You can email them the web address shown in your browser. Or share the post via social media by clicking on one of the following icons:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
[This license gives you permission to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. You may also remix, transform, and build upon the material. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.]
Responses:
Nancy-Laurel Pettersen -January 01, 1970
Thanks, Larry, for your attentiveness to our situation and your devotion to the work.
Much appreciated, Nancy-Laurel. Onward. Together! -
Ben -January 01, 1970
Larry, this is a new idea for me, and carries weight. I had a different understanding in my head. I am currently reading about "why institutions or nations fail". The argument is that entrenched interests (market monopolies, guilds, trade interests, ruling classes, political bodies) protect themselves against disruptoin, which results in a lack of adaptation or inovation. This lack of innovation ultimately results in people getting fed up and leaving, or the market evaporates and they are left with nothing. That is the theory. As a topical example, the german motor industry fails to adapt to new technology and loses sales in important markets, whilst new-kids-on-the-block with nothing to lose, (chinese car manufacturers) have grown from zero to massive. In conclusion, I would place (1) entrenchment (existing figures that benefit in the current situation are not motivated towards, or actively hinder, innovation with its risk of creative destruction) and (2) an innovation deficit (... in the method, in PR, in the training programme, et al) high on the list of malaises affecting my profession. An analysis of how entrenched interests exist in the FM profession is very interesting. For instance, the FM industry is made up of (a) practitioners who work with the public, and (b) practitioners who work training other practitioners. This latter group do a very valuable service. That not withstanding, the FM profession stands or falls on the ability of group (a) earning living. This is the situation where adapation and innovation are required to meet the market where it is, rather than the reverse. I see you, Larry, as one of very few senior figures in our industry who lead by example in a way that nurtures, shares, and innovates. Hats off to you (though you often wear a hat :-) ) I would be interested in your perspective on the above thoughts.
Hello Ben - Great to hear from you - and to see you on the AY a Day the other day. I appreciate your kind words (and homage to my hat habit). Thank you for your thoughtful reflections and ideas about why nations and institutions fail and how they are relevant to us. (Are you, by chance, drawing on the analysis from Nobel prize-winning economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson's book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty?) Though I must confess to finding the term "Feldenkrais industry" jarring, I think that this approach is applicable. As is all too common, the first folks in a new field often impose rules to protect the profession - and their position in it. Even if we were to say that wasn't the intention from the get-go, it's clear that the rules established for becoming a trainer and accrediting training programs have hampered innovation and restricted the development of new trainers and assistant trainers, which you referred to as entrenchment. A couple of considerations regarding what you wrote: 1) The inability of Feldenkrais teachers to make a living is not entirely based on the shortcomings of training programs. It also has to do with how: - Professional associations have fallen far short of proactively addressing deficiencies in training. (We can't change the past, but we could - and should - acknowledge the situation and come up with innovative ways for everyone who already graduated from professional training to improve and move forward.) - Rarely have guilds even attempted to create and support marketing campaigns. - Teachers, individually and communally, haven't quite kept up with changes in the market, such as the relatively recent soaring recognition of and interest in somatics. - In terms of the lack of innovation, while Feldenkrais was known for being at the leading edge of science & somatics, most of how present our work only rehashes what he said & wrote about long ago. 2) Did your analogy of German automaker take into account larger societal forces, such as the impact of the collapse of globalization on the national economy overall? - Aren't the changes in the environment in which they operate similar to the problems created by state regulation of vocational training in the US? - While these legislative changes are far from the sole cause, I suggest they're a contributing factor (in this country anyway). As such, they would - thankfully - be easy to remedy, especially in comparison to the tumult & turmoil in the global economic and political context. One of my aims in bringing up this one aspect of what's happening in the development of our profession was to spark reflection and encourage discussion in our community. Thank you so much for responding and continuing the conversation. Onward. Together, Larry -
Martha Jordan -January 01, 1970
Thank you for articulating an important aspect of today's reality in the United States. There does need to be state by state legislation that allows for people to become certified in Feldenkrais as a profession. A challenge for many in states that view "bodywork" the same as a massage parlor (vs. massage therapy). Keep passing on your thoughts. They are appreciated.
Thanks, Martha. I'm heartened to hear that you appreciate what I write. -
Please Log in to comment
