Dear Colleagues:
The FGNA Board has been listening carefully to the many points of view expressed in the current discussion, and we would like to offer a few observations. First, we want to express support for the day of discussion before the IFF Assembly that is about to happen. This is an opportunity for creative input and emerging ideas that can further explore the issues that divide us, as well as the points we agree on. No one knows at this time what new perspectives might emerge. Second, we see this day as part of a larger process to create a new structure. (See below at point 6.) Third, it is also important to remember that while the IFF is an essential forum for discussion of this matter, decisions about training policy remain the responsibility of the Governing Bodies of the TABs.
Several years ago, the Governing Bodies asked for discussion on this topic in the IFF. The IWG was a committee created by the Governing Bodies to investigate this issue. Discussion of the IWG report has been done at IFF meetings, as well as circulated internationally. The IWG report made several recommendations, some of which it might be possible for the Governing Bodies to act on. While the recent follow-up SRC report proposed striking ideas that prod our thinking, FGNA does not consider the SRC report a proposal for action. Rather, it is a report that exposes the deeper issues.
One question that has been raised is whether there really is a need for a new structure. We feel it is important to reaffirm that there is a need, because we have observed that the current system no longer shows the ability to deal with training policy changes fruitfully. There are many reasons for this, which could be best expressed by those working on the current TABs and Boards of our various organizations, as well as the great majority of the training community.
For several years now we have seen a massive effort to rethink the entire training policy situation. We have attacked this beast with words and brain-power. Some novel ideas have been offered, but many have not been grounded in the realities of current operations. What we have been trying to do is very unlike the organic, evolutionary processes which we are more familiar with in our own work. This is not the way that learning and change normally take place in biological systems. For a community so far flung and peppered with multiple ways of thinking, it is difficult to resolve a new solution that is not historically connected to what has gone before.
FGNA would like to suggest that we seek at this time a solution which is more evolutionary than revolutionary. Any plan that emerges need not change everything at once, but it should incorporate within itself principles for further maturation and growth--keystones that will keep us in touch with the possibility for further change and future new directions.
Therefore, FGNA would like to suggest that the following points are important:
1. We recommend not to "dissolve" the three TAB system, at least for now. The jobs of training accreditation and trainer and assistant trainer certification can continue to be done where they have been. Individual guilds and associations do have the ultimate authority, and so need to decide where they will allow to be handled accreditation for trainings that take place in their country; but they can decide to vest that authority in a regional TAB. For the most part, this system for training accreditation has worked reasonably well.
2. The TAB's could decide to withdraw from the IFF, however, this needs further discussion. On the one hand, the IFF is a forum for Guild discussions, and these include training issues. Nevertheless, the TAB focus on training accreditation and trainer certification is narrow and does not require the TABs to maintain a full-time role at IFF meetings.
3. It is practitioner certification which must be done at the national Guild level. This is because of variance in national laws--it is necessary to allow for the possibility that requirements for practice can vary from country to country. Issues of "portability" from one country to another can be minimized, but will never go away completely. This needs to be allowed for, and may require in some countries another "layer" on top of internationally accepted training requirements. If we are to move towards greater competency and quality, we need to honor the authority of the Guilds.
4. It is important to keep trainer certification at the international level. There is no convincing reason why this should not continue at this time, although changes to the current policy and the process for this certification are called for.
5. The essential thing is that we need a more workable way to handle changes in training policy and creation of new policy, including policies that accredit trainings and certify trainers and assistants. This remains the central point of focus and the core issue to be resolved.
6. To do this, we probably need a new body specifically to propose, create, write and rewrite training accreditation and trainer certification policy. Four simple, practical reasons why we need to do this are:
A) the TABs are overworked and do not have time to consider policy change;
B) policy change requires a different focus than accreditation and certification;
C) there is not sufficient trainer representation on the TABs to effectively allocate TAB or trainer resources to policy development; and
D) Curently, policy improvement is stuck.
In effect, the current TAB system, while adequate to handle current policy, is a bottleneck for policy development.
7. Creation of new policy needs to be properly representational. It should be possible for policy proposals to flow efficiently from all appropriate bodies around the world and express the needs of each source of authority and the constituency they represent. All such proposals could go to a body specifically dedicated to evaluating ideas for change of training policy, and this body would itself contain representatives from qualified sources. Guilds, TABs and the training community each need to be represented and participate as a significant part of the process. FGNA believes it is essential that any new structure for creating training policy include those most experienced with training.
8. Any new body's initial task should be to establish Policy Principles, which allow for the possibility of regional variety and experimentation, as well as the continuance of international stability, and which maintain this balance in policy. It should be part of the charter of this body to keep issues of representation and international communication in the forefront of its functioning, as well as to make room for innovation, quality improvement and competency assessment.
We hope the above ideas will add to the discussion, foster clarity and further new thinking.
Regards to all,
Michael Purcell, President,
Feldenkrais Guild® of North America
For the FGNA Board of Directors
The FGNA Board has been listening carefully to the many points of view expressed in the current discussion, and we would like to offer a few observations. First, we want to express support for the day of discussion before the IFF Assembly that is about to happen. This is an opportunity for creative input and emerging ideas that can further explore the issues that divide us, as well as the points we agree on. No one knows at this time what new perspectives might emerge. Second, we see this day as part of a larger process to create a new structure. (See below at point 6.) Third, it is also important to remember that while the IFF is an essential forum for discussion of this matter, decisions about training policy remain the responsibility of the Governing Bodies of the TABs.
Several years ago, the Governing Bodies asked for discussion on this topic in the IFF. The IWG was a committee created by the Governing Bodies to investigate this issue. Discussion of the IWG report has been done at IFF meetings, as well as circulated internationally. The IWG report made several recommendations, some of which it might be possible for the Governing Bodies to act on. While the recent follow-up SRC report proposed striking ideas that prod our thinking, FGNA does not consider the SRC report a proposal for action. Rather, it is a report that exposes the deeper issues.
One question that has been raised is whether there really is a need for a new structure. We feel it is important to reaffirm that there is a need, because we have observed that the current system no longer shows the ability to deal with training policy changes fruitfully. There are many reasons for this, which could be best expressed by those working on the current TABs and Boards of our various organizations, as well as the great majority of the training community.
For several years now we have seen a massive effort to rethink the entire training policy situation. We have attacked this beast with words and brain-power. Some novel ideas have been offered, but many have not been grounded in the realities of current operations. What we have been trying to do is very unlike the organic, evolutionary processes which we are more familiar with in our own work. This is not the way that learning and change normally take place in biological systems. For a community so far flung and peppered with multiple ways of thinking, it is difficult to resolve a new solution that is not historically connected to what has gone before.
FGNA would like to suggest that we seek at this time a solution which is more evolutionary than revolutionary. Any plan that emerges need not change everything at once, but it should incorporate within itself principles for further maturation and growth--keystones that will keep us in touch with the possibility for further change and future new directions.
Therefore, FGNA would like to suggest that the following points are important:
1. We recommend not to "dissolve" the three TAB system, at least for now. The jobs of training accreditation and trainer and assistant trainer certification can continue to be done where they have been. Individual guilds and associations do have the ultimate authority, and so need to decide where they will allow to be handled accreditation for trainings that take place in their country; but they can decide to vest that authority in a regional TAB. For the most part, this system for training accreditation has worked reasonably well.
2. The TAB's could decide to withdraw from the IFF, however, this needs further discussion. On the one hand, the IFF is a forum for Guild discussions, and these include training issues. Nevertheless, the TAB focus on training accreditation and trainer certification is narrow and does not require the TABs to maintain a full-time role at IFF meetings.
3. It is practitioner certification which must be done at the national Guild level. This is because of variance in national laws--it is necessary to allow for the possibility that requirements for practice can vary from country to country. Issues of "portability" from one country to another can be minimized, but will never go away completely. This needs to be allowed for, and may require in some countries another "layer" on top of internationally accepted training requirements. If we are to move towards greater competency and quality, we need to honor the authority of the Guilds.
4. It is important to keep trainer certification at the international level. There is no convincing reason why this should not continue at this time, although changes to the current policy and the process for this certification are called for.
5. The essential thing is that we need a more workable way to handle changes in training policy and creation of new policy, including policies that accredit trainings and certify trainers and assistants. This remains the central point of focus and the core issue to be resolved.
6. To do this, we probably need a new body specifically to propose, create, write and rewrite training accreditation and trainer certification policy. Four simple, practical reasons why we need to do this are:
A) the TABs are overworked and do not have time to consider policy change;
B) policy change requires a different focus than accreditation and certification;
C) there is not sufficient trainer representation on the TABs to effectively allocate TAB or trainer resources to policy development; and
D) Curently, policy improvement is stuck.
In effect, the current TAB system, while adequate to handle current policy, is a bottleneck for policy development.
7. Creation of new policy needs to be properly representational. It should be possible for policy proposals to flow efficiently from all appropriate bodies around the world and express the needs of each source of authority and the constituency they represent. All such proposals could go to a body specifically dedicated to evaluating ideas for change of training policy, and this body would itself contain representatives from qualified sources. Guilds, TABs and the training community each need to be represented and participate as a significant part of the process. FGNA believes it is essential that any new structure for creating training policy include those most experienced with training.
8. Any new body's initial task should be to establish Policy Principles, which allow for the possibility of regional variety and experimentation, as well as the continuance of international stability, and which maintain this balance in policy. It should be part of the charter of this body to keep issues of representation and international communication in the forefront of its functioning, as well as to make room for innovation, quality improvement and competency assessment.
We hope the above ideas will add to the discussion, foster clarity and further new thinking.
Regards to all,
Michael Purcell, President,
Feldenkrais Guild® of North America
For the FGNA Board of Directors