2000-2001: Quality and Competency Special Committee

The Assembly formed a Quality and Competency Special Committee "... to coordinate the development of the competency approach in many of the current activities of the IFF. Further, the Special Committee will coordinate a group of 'experts' who will continue to research the issues specific to the need to develop a Competency Profile."

The Special Committee undertook to continue to research many of the questions begun in the Assembly.

The Special Committee began a series of telephone meetings and individually-directed research into many areas which ultimately formed into discussion papers presented to the IFF Board in December, 2000 and May, 2001.

The Special Committee realized that it needed a "map" to guide its investigation and thinking. They used an "inquiry" method which resulted in a profound series of questions that pertained to the issues. Then these questions were re-organized according to reasonable categories. By the next Assembly, the Special Committee had investigated and debated almost every question. The "set of questions to be considered" is most enlightening for anyone interested in beginning to ponder the subject with some sincerity.

A generic set of questions, specific to the needs of the IFF Assembly was developed by Cliff. These questions continue to guide the members of the Competency group.

The Quality and Competency Special Committee met in Paris (before and during the between-Assembly Board meeting) to discuss some of the research completed by December, 2000. Just prior to the meeting, one member had attended a conference on Competency (NOCA, November 2000 in Florida, USA, and was able to provide very rich information learned form specialists and professional organizations. The discussions of the Special Committee were very potent, for the considerations of Competency were discussed in a context of the question of how to develop the quality of practice of practitioners. It was these discussions that germinated the Acacemy concept, and later the the ideas of how the Academy and the Competency Profile were threads of a similar tapestry.

In the first few months of 2001, the Special Committee had written the following Draft Papers that are linked at left:

• Competencies in Related Disciplines or Fields
• Research on different Methodologies
• Feldenkrais-Specific Guidelines
• Focus on Competencies (European perspective, in German)
• Steps for the Development of a Competency Profile

Additional shorter papers that were shared among the Special Committee included reviews of self-assessment, certification stages, portfolio assessment, general assessment considerations, other pedagogies, and certification considerations, plus summaries of interviews with a number of professionals in the field, or with some experience in the field.

In the months before the 2001 Assembly, the Q&C Special Committee became aware that the Training Accreditation Boards were working on their own Competency profile. This lead to a new level of consideration. Whereas the considerations of Competency had included a range of marker points, from competion of training (or even, before completion), to some as yet undetermined time of "competency" to at least one more level considered "mastery". The Special Committee pondered the value of continuing the current project from a number of points of view. Some features of the IFF project were seen as being highly unique and beneficial for member organizations and practitioners:

• The IFF Competency Profile had the Practitioner at the center of consideration (versus the TABs having trainings as their center);
  
  
• The IFF Competency Profile project would be inclusive of stakeholders (versus the TABs only stakeholders being the training community);
  
  
• The IFF Competency Profile would refer to a level of practice that may be some time after graduation;
  
  
• The breadth of proficiencies in the IFF Competency Profile would be more extensive than what could be created by the TAB's;
  
  
• The IFF Competency Profile may also suggest to practitioners what lay beyond the minimum competencies;
  
  
• The IFF Competency Profile could be used as the basis for certification of practitioners;
  
  
• The process for the development of the IFF Competency Profile was to be of sufficient methodological rigor that would stand up to legal challenge;
  
  
• The Assemblies had already identified a set of values that provided very clear direction that different process would emerge (as compared to the educationally-focussed needs of the TAB's)

Summary: June, 2000 to April, 2001.

The Quality and Competency Special Committee recognized that they were starting with very little knowledge and information about the field of Competency Profiles. At the Assembly, the following was observed,

We quickly understood that we were moving into completely new territory with no apparent map to guide us-in fact, we were creating the map! At times we had only fleeting glimpses of major features of the terrain. And yet, we had a certainty that competency exists... (from: Quality and Competence: Why, What and How [May 2000 IFF Assembly]. by Rob Black, Barbara Pieper and Markus Riesen. International Feldenkrais Federation Newsletter January 2001)

In the months that followed, the Committee had:

• outlined an extensive range of questions that were of critical importance for the development of a Competency Profile for the Feldenkrais Method;
• researched a number of relevant topics
• discussed extensively potential cultural differences in the concepts of Competency
• produced summary reports for the Board reflecting of the research
• made initial recommendations on how a Competency Profile for the practice of the Feldenkrais Method might be developed

All of this was somehow communicated prior to the Assembly in Assembly Update #11 (April 26, 2001). An extract follows:

...The IFF perspective on quality and competency. What does a practitioner needs for doing the job while improving and growing ?

With the perspective on quality & competency this committee suggests that the IFF meets three challenges/requests/conditions:
a) The needs of practitioners working all over the world. They are at the centre of concern. There is no Method without a practitioner.
b) The evolution of the FK Method after half a century of existence, i. e. its emergence into a professional field promoting advancement rather than dilution.
c) Current trends in modern Western societies describing work and educational issues in terms of quality & competency.

Bearing in mind those demands, the IFF perspective should relate to the following criteria for viewing quality and competency:
1.The process has to embody Feldenkrais ways of thinking and experiencing (see above).
2.We look for what a professional practitioner needs as an ongoing process of professional and personal development.
3. We have learned from research about quality & competency approaches (theoretical and practical) differing from Feldenkrais (in various countries) to accept the complexity of this matter.
4. Participation and validation processes with practitioners -- with experiential emphasis in development and use.
5. Feedback and feed forward, broad-based networking, and permanent evaluation of the process.
6. A multifacetted approach
a) helps identify and integrate different but interlinked involved agents (stakeholders) and interests within and outside the Feldenkrais world, including using Round Table discussions. For instance, the purpose and perspective of a training programme differs from the viewpoint of a practitioner already doing the job – just as what a doctor has to know and do differs from what is expected of  a medical student. They belong together but are not the same. The student’s entry-level competencies will derive from anticipation of what s/he will later need for doing the job and transformation of these basic competences into an elaborated educational curriculum.
b) honour the diversity of people’s practice, for instance different or additional competencies, such as skills not taught in trainings or experience of practice prior to the training or other domains.
c) Different levels of competencies: not just the level at graduation and  at the start of  practice.
7) Different but interwoven Quality and Competency processes, eg. competency-based certification or re-certification by Guilds; quality enhancement processes for practitioners – for example for use in workshops for continuing education, self-study, study groups etc..
8) Scientific and ethical values: The processes will meet, so far as possible, high standards of validity, reliability, variability, fairness, and transparency.

We believe that the IFF should expect (or hope for) the following results:
1. Outcome: quality processes; practitioner competencies; provision of worldwide standards with recognition of regional and cultural differences, without focusing too early on outcomes or narrowing the results.
Time-frame intended: long term, taking into account the complexity of this issue, the interwovenness of external and internal aspects and specific Feldenkrais procedures. Differentiation of time-frames depending on the purpose (external expertise or ongoing quality development processes for practitioners).  Emphasis on organic growth.
2.Validity: The outcome should be valid in terms of  professional competencies and associated processes, inclusive of ensuring relevance.
 

From: Assembly Update #11, April 26, 2001