David Zemach-Bersin March 10, 2009

I appreciate the dialogue that has been created by Helena’s SRG letter. Thank you for taking my response and those of others into consideration. Since writing to you last week, I find myself having increasing concerns. Concerns for the health and future of our shared work, and concerns for how the personal issues or agendas of a very few people might be hijacking long term IFF policy. My fear is that this SRG initiative represents the interests of a self-selected small group with a priori opinions that prevent it from taking into full account all of the sentiments in the educational and Practitioner community. This anxiety is supported by the inexplicable short notice for a meeting contained in the letter, the lack of any prior communication, the lack of well-reasoned arguments in the letter, and the lack of time for inclusive discussion. I am afraid that something just doesn’t seem quite right.

Please allow me to bring to the foreground some facts which might be obvious to some, but at the same time, serve to underscore the important role that the Training Accreditation Boards (TAB’s) provide. The TAB’s are three committees which are mandated to oversee the=2 0governance or regulation of Feldenkrais professional training programs, the teachers who teach in these programs, and the process by which Feldenkrais Practitioners become eligible to teach in programs, as Assistant Trainers and Trainers. The TAB’s are also responsible for the creation and evaluation of the policies which concern these domains. Functionally, the TAB’s are already committees of the Australian Guild, the North American Guild, and the European Guild organizations, and all policy must be approved unanimously by these membership organizations. This requirement for uniformity in TAB policies was created in order to insure full international discussion and collaboration, high standards for trainings, and to inhibit the undue influence of personal or small group interests.

The TAB’s areas of responsibility are extremely important to the future of the Feldenkrais Method. For example, TAB policies and pedagogical standards effect the quality of the Teachers in professional training programs , which has a direct impact on the quality and depth of education offered in the programs, and this ultimately effects the quality and depth of every new graduate’s understanding and skills. Graduates who choose to become Feldenkrais Practitioners will then have a wide ranging, long-term impact on the public and professional community’s perception of the Feldenkrais Method. In addition, today’s graduates will one day become our future Assistant Trainers and Trainers. In other words, the TAB’s are part of an integrated and interrelated system effecting the future of the Feldenkrais work, and standards are extremely important.

How one views the TAB’s responsibilities, training program polices and even the larger role of the TAB in the community, depends on one’s values, and how we envision the future of our common professional work. For example, what kind of profession do we want to be, and what does that mean in relation to training programs, standards, and concepts such as competency and certification? I think this is the discussion that the governing bodies, and the Fel denkrais community should be having in an ongoing way. Without this discussion we are vulnerable to functioning without an over-arching vision and direction. In the absence of a common defined philosophical position, the IFF and the TAB’s are constantly re-inventing policy from scratch. I see this evidenced in the SRG letter, and definitely the prior work of the IWG.

In the SRG letter, we are told that a small group have had a ‘revelation’ that the TAB’s should no longer be part of the IFF, and that all educational and training program policies should now be determined and regulated by each individual country. The letter contains no substantive explanation, there is no mention of a mature long term vision, and no talk of how this will lead to a better realization of our shared educational and professional values. I am sorry, but something about this shallow treatment of extremely important issues, seems very odd to me. I h ave the feeling that we are not being told the real motives and intentions behind the de-regulation requested in the SRG letter.

Are we really willing to abandon our international standards? Has there really been proper engagement in a deep, community-wide discussion about what this would mean, and especially what the full consequences would be? Do we really believe that determining the standards which guide the development of the Feldenkrais Method on a country by country basis will amount to an improvement in policies and the quality of our work? For myself, I doubt that it will lead to anything but fragmentation, a dangerous dilution of standards, and a profession-wide vulnerability to the influence and pressures of small groups of disgruntled people.

Why are some people uncomfortable with standards? Being a mature profession necessitates having standards, and developing a solid, responsible set of rules, regulations and constraints which we as a group agree to live with. These rules are derived from our values, and our desire to protect the future of our work. I refer not only to simple standards which are easy for us all to agree to, such as ethical standards, but also standards regarding who graduates from training programs, standards of competence for certification, standards for training programs, and standards for those who will teach in training programs.

I strongly believe that embracing and promoting international training program standards and competency standards has great value for the Feldenkrais profession, both internally and externally. Externally, standards demonstrate to the state and to the public that we regulate ourselves. If we regulate ourselves in a meaningful common way, there is less likelihood that the state will intervene and try to do the job for us. Externally, standards also protect the public’s legitimate concerns regarding trust and quality. Over time, professional standards help to convey to the public a particular image of the Feldenkrais Practitioner, and establish a minimum level of competence that should be expected from a practitioner. In other words, properly managed, the title of Feldenkrais Guild Certified Practitioner can imply a high level of value and trustworthiness to the public.

The internal value of standards has to do with how we see ourselves, and how the Feldenkrais Method continues to grow, within us, and through us. Do we see ourselves as serious professionals upholding particular values and standards? Or would we rather not take on the responsibilities and limitations which come with standards? Unfortunately, as in all professions, standards mean that not all people will be happy, all of the time. Is this what we are afraid of?

Those who have particular grievances with international training policies deserve to be heard fully. There have been problems with TAB process and with some policies which were not properly tested. But IFF/TAB policies and standards should not be just about today, or who is able to influence the IFF today.

The SRG is asking for policy changes which will greatly impact future Training Program policies, the training of new Practitioners, and the future of our work. In the letter we received, nothing is said about the advantages of breaking up the TAB's. I wonder who is behind these proposals and who will financially gain from them? It seems that there overlap between the SRG proposal and those involved in the IWG, or the IWG issues? In my opinion, profound conflicts of interest and issues of financial gain, severely tainted much of the IWG work and positions.

Have the great majority of Trainers and Assistant Trainers said that they want policies to be determined by each individual country? Did the great majority of Practitioners, through the Policy to Change Policy ask for these changes? Was the educational community consulted? If not, why not? I, for one, have certainly never been asked my opinion on this proposal. Is there a relationship between the rush for this meeting, the lack of notice to Trainers and Assistants, and the policy changes and whomever is pushing for the changes?

I agree that our structures may be imperfect, though I imagine my thoughts on policy are very different from those held by the SRG. My feeling is that TAB policies for training programs are NOT high e nough, and should be more evidence based. But, this is a discussion for another day. In spite of my differences with some TAB policies, I am a strong supporter of the TAB's work, independence, and international orientation. The SRG's proposal is to ask for a complete dissullution, a complete taking apart of the minimal weak system that we have. I simply do not understand what is gained by these changes. On what basis is the SRG so confident that individual countries acting alone, will make so much better decisions than the international TAB's?

Do we really imagine that by de-internationalizing training policies, by making the TAB’s more vulnerable to political pressures from a few people, will bring us closer to well examined and well developed standards? I personally cannot see it.

International TAB standards help foster the growth, quality and integrity of the Feldenkrais Method for future generations. I am afraid that once what we have has been destroyed, that it will never be able to be made whole again. I suggest that the IFF and the Feldenkrais educational community take the time to ponder the intentions and consequences of these proposals, in a dispassionate and thorough way, to not make rushed decisions based on who speaks the loudest, to not make the easy decisions, but rather to make responsible decisions that will serve and protect our work in an enduring way rather than serve the interests of the few.

Sincerely,

David Zemach-Bersin