Part 1: What do the TABS do?
Training Accreditation Boards - how many are there? What do they do? Are members elected? How many trainers sit on the Boards? Are there assistants? Are practitioners represented there as well? To whom are the Boards responsible and to whom are they responsive? Do the three Boards communicate with each other? What does each Board do separately and what do they do in conjunction with each other? Is there a process for policy innovation/change? In fact, who can have input into this process and how?
These were some of the questions which were asked by representatives of Guilds from all over the Feldenkrais world at the 1997 IFF Assembly in Basel, Switzerland. The questions were addressed to people who ought be able to answer - representatives of each of the three Training Accreditation Boards.
Meeting with small groups of representatives from various countries were Patrice Auquier of the EuroTAB, Chris Lambert of the AUSTAB and Olena Nitefor of the NATAB. As some Guilds were represented by more than one member, a number of Guilds had the opportunity to meet with the TABs several times. Many questions were addressed to all three TABs, although some were more specifically applicable to the EuroTAB, which accredits trainings in many countries, and therefore communicates with many Guilds. These small group discussions provided an invalu-able opportunity for the TABs as well. The immediacy of interchange possible in a discussion provides very different rapport and opportunities than do communications through letters, faxes or even that quickest of mediums, e-mail.
The IFF Newsletter seems like the logical venue to further the visibility and understanding of what the Training Accreditation Boards work towards in our community. I am therefore writing what I hope is just the first in a series of articles about various aspects of the Boards' work. Because many of the questions and discussions in Basel focused on policy evolution/change I will address this issue first.
A bit of background. At the moment there are three Training Accreditation Boards: The European TAB, the Australian TAB and the North American TAB. Each of these TABs has committed itself to abide by and administer common, international policies. The areas which the TABs are responsible for are:
- Accreditation of Professional Training Programs
- Certification of Assistant Trainers
- Certification of Trainers
- Administration and review of policy.
Accreditation of Professional Training Programs:
Each TAB acts independently, but each TAB follows the same accreditation policy.
Educational Directors/Organizers submit Training Proposals to the geographically appropriate TAB. Thus for a training in Sydney, the AUSTAB would receive and act on the proposal. For a training in Paris, the EuroTAB would be the accrediting TAB, while a training proposed for New York City would send its application to the NATAB. The TABs stay in communication about questions of interpretation of aspects of policy. As the FELDENKRAIS "world" grows, the TABs need to evaluate and reevaluate which TAB is to be responsible for which new geographical region.
Certification of Assistant Trainers:
Each TAB acts independently and uses the same international certification policy.
As with training proposals, a practitioner applying to become an assistant trainer sends his/her application to the geographically appropriate TAB.
Certification of Trainers:
All three TABs are involved in the certification of trainers. Each TAB uses the same international accreditation policy as criteria for its discussions.
The full application is sent to each of the three TABs and is discussed independently by each TAB. Any TAB may request further information from the candidate. This information is then sent to the other TABs, so that each TAB has exactly the same materials on which to base its deliberations. While each TAB renders its recommendation separately, all three must make the same recommendation in order for a decision to be reached. How does that work? If each of the three TABs recommend certification, then the decision is an approval to certify. The same holds true if each of the TABs recommend that a candidate not be certified as a trainer at that time. In situations where certification is not approved, candidates can be asked to gain further experience or to address certain areas of development and then to reapply.
In cases where the three TAB recommendations are not the same, the TABs engage in discussions (usually through letters) until they can reach a consensual decision.
So, who makes these international policies which the TABs follow? Are they immutable, unchangeable, hewn in stone? Is there a process for re-evaluating and changing policy? If so, who participates?
At the simplest level I think of policies as agreements which are made between members of a community. This is certainly how Feldenkrais policies started. No one came to us and said - these are the standards you must follow in order to be recognized. For the moment we are not governed by imposed rules, we are governed by self-created policies. Thus, every international policy (whether we agree with it or not) has been created by our own community members some time in the past. Since policy is self-generated and not imposed by an external legal body, it can be reevaluated, reviewed and changed. The only caveat to be followed is that a broad base of the community be involved.
In the second part of this article, to be published in the next Newsletter, I will discuss how we go about changing training policies.