Archive for the 'Education' Category...
Filed under Education, General, Massage, Massage Associations, Massage Legislation, Politics of Massage
Anne Williams of ABMP has confirmed to me today the members of the group that are working on the Entry-Level Analysis Project that I have been blogging about for the past few weeks. Since the secrecy surrounding this project has been my main complaint, about it, I will share that information here. The members are:
Cynthia Ribeiro, President of AMTA (National), educator, and school owner.
Tom Lochhaas, University-level educator, author, editor with 24 years experience in developing college-level textbooks and ancillaries.
Elan Schacter, Massage therapist, instructor, text reviewer, contributing author.
Clint Chandler, Massage therapist and instructor, experienced in curriculum development.
Rick Garbowski, Massage therapist and instructor, experienced in curriculum development.
Jim O’Hara, Instructional designer.
Anne Williams, Director of Education for ABMP.
Williams stated that she was in the process of compiling the comments of those who were present at the Leadership Summit; that everyone present was now in support of it, and that much more information about the project would be forthcoming in the next two weeks. She further stated that this was intended to be a research project, and that what people do with the information will be their choice. As I said in my last blog, neither ABMP, AMTA, or any of the other organizations present at the Leadership Summit are regulatory organizations, and none of them have the power to dictate legislation. (Clarification: the FSMTB is an organization of regulatory boards, but is not regulatory in and of itself). READ MORE…
Comments (0) Posted by Laura Allen on Friday, May 25th, 2012
Filed under Education, Ethics, General, Massage, Massage Associations, Massage Legislation, Politics of Massage
I’ve been on vacation…I took a deliberate ten-day break from the Internet and from all the politics of massage while I was enjoying my annual sojourn in Ireland. I didn’t visit any Internet cafes. I didn’t read the paper and I didn’t watch the news. I left my cell phone at home, too. It was quite refreshing and restorative to be unplugged for that period of time, but now it’s back to the grind. From the look of things, it would seem that the powers that be are enforcing a news black-out as well. They have apparently been sworn to secrecy. It looks like a covert operation from the CIA.
The press release from the Leadership Summit, held in Chicago May 1-2, and attended by the leaders of our national organizations, was released May 9. I was expecting a white-washed version of the events, and I was not disappointed.
Out of nowhere, the press release mentions casually: “An ongoing discussion of the Entry-Level Analysis Project (ELAP) occurred and input from the leadership organizations was discussed.”
Wait just a minute… isn’t this the very first public mention of this project? No one outside of the inner circle of secret-keepers knows what the ELAP is, who the driving forces are behind it, and what its real purpose is. They can’t just drop a profession-altering project onto the landscape like it’s a known quantity, wave a little flag that promises us some future opportunity to have input into the project, and then expect us to salute the results whatever they may be.
The Leadership Summit press release mentions that massage therapists are going to get some input into this project—through a “companion” survey to the FSMTB Job Task Analysis. That may sound promising, but let’s remember that FSMTB is an exam provider, and their major focus is on the MBLEx. The Job Task Analysis survey is not necessarily the best way to determine what an entry-level massage therapist needs to know….READ MORE
Comments (0) Posted by Laura Allen on Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012
Filed under Education, Ethics, Massage, Massage Associations, Massage Legislation, Politics of Massage
From the title, you might think this blog is about The Client List, the trashy new show on the Lifetime Channel that gives massage therapy a black eye. No such luck; the event I am referring to is the upcoming Leadership Summit #2, set to take place next week in Chicago.
The first Leadership Summit (to clarify: there were summits in 2003-04 before AFMTE and FSMTB existed) took place last September in St. Louis, with the executive directors and chairs of ABMP, AFMTE, AMTA, the Massage Therapy Foundation, FSMTB, COMTA, and NCBTMB in attendance. It was a historic event in that it was the first time all seven of these organizations had come together in the best interests of the profession. The purpose, according to the press release announcing the meeting, “was to hold a beginning conversation about major structural issues and impediments to profession progress. The desire is to have candid exchange about core challenges, quality concerns, consumer expectations and organizational roles.”
Apparently, one of the hot topics at this week’s meeting is going to be the number of required entry-level education hours. Although this was not on the agreed-upon agenda at the first meeting, it was introduced anyway by ABMP Chairman Bob Benson, complete with a thorough proposal prepared by Anne Williams, Director of Education at ABMP. Basically, the proposal was for a task force to be formed immediately, and using Job Task Analyses that have been conducted by the NCBTMB and the FSMTB, to nail down a definite number of hours that should be required for entry-level education. This was contrary to the facilitator’s recommendation—and the group’s agreement— that they would spend the initial meeting identifying problems, and would address possible solutions for these problems at meetings to follow. READ MORE...
Comments (1) Posted by Laura Allen on Monday, April 30th, 2012
Filed under Education, General, Massage, Massage Associations, Massage Legislation, Politics of Massage
I’ve been criticizing the Maintenance of Core Competency (MOCC) proposal from the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards since the moment it landed on my radar, and I haven’t changed my mind. I think it’s a terrible plan that doesn’t serve any good purpose other than increasing the coffers of the FSMTB. In its present form, it appears to be a blatant move to put the NCBTMB out of business.
What has been interesting to me is to see the way this thing has unfolded. Right off the bat, I had some criticism of the Task Force assembled by FSMTB that supposedly got this thing together. I say supposedly, because when I saw who was on it, my first thought was “No, they couldn’t possibly have supported that.”
So here we have Immediate Past President of AMTA, Glenath Moyle, whom I know personally and like a great deal. In spite of Moyle’s presence on the Task Force, the national office of AMTA only took a few days to come out with a statement shooting more than 20 holes in the MOCC proposal. In spite of the fact that the FSMTB chose Task Force members who were supposedly representatives of their respective organizations, that apparently didn’t work too well in this case.
AMTA has never allowed an individual officer to speak for the entire organization without their board’s approval; their blanket slam of the proposal seems to indicate that they never saw the proposal prior to publication, much less given the opportunity to sign off on it. I wholeheartedly support AMTA’s condemnation of this far-fetched plan, but I didn’t like to see Ms. Moyle in a position of looking like she had egg on her face. That could have been prevented if this process had been carried out in a more transparent manner….READ MORE
Comments (1) Posted by Laura Allen on Sunday, April 15th, 2012
Filed under Education, General, Marketing, Massage, Massage Associations, Massage Legislation, Modalities, Politics of Massage
The National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork has announced several bold new initiatives for moving the organization ahead. It’s no secret that the NCBTMB has had their ups and downs. The immediate past CEO, Paul Lindamood, had a lot to do with bringing them back from the brink of financial disaster that was caused partially by the MBLEx cutting drastically into their exam income, and partially by a previous administration that seemed hell-bent on bankrupting the organization. In a press release dated March 14, the organization outlined their new directions:
– Beginning in the first quarter of 2013, NCBTMB will end its existing National Certification credential, and will replace it with a new Board Certification credential. This will require passing the new Board Certification exam, which has Eligibility Requirements of 750 hours of education, 250 hours of hands on work experience and passing of a background check. Additional qualifications may be added, based on feedback from the profession. This will elevate the value of “certification” to a true post-graduate credential as opposed to the entry-level status it has held since its inception.
– In the summer of 2012, NCBTMB will launch a new online portal where all interaction with NCBTMB can be accomplished. including applications for all exams, recertification, approved providers, school reviews and payment for all NCBTMB services and products will be accomplished through this new portal. This will streamline their operations and cut down on the amount of time involved for all concerned.
– Beginning in the summer of 2012, NCBTMB’s continuing education approval program will also require courses to be vetted, along with CE providers. Providers will be required to submit their qualifications to teach each course. Previously, once a provider was approved, they could add on courses at will, which has caused some problems with people teaching subjects they are not truly qualified for. There has been some abuse as well concerning inappropriate course content, such as people creating a course just to sell a product they’ve invented. I attended last year’s meeting held by the NCBTMB for the purpose of gathering input and suggestions on how to improve the CE program, and vetting individual courses was at the top of the wish list. It’s good to see them listening and taking suggestions. READ MORE…
Comments (3) Posted by Laura Allen on Tuesday, March 20th, 2012
Filed under Education, Ethics, General, Massage, Massage Associations, Massage Legislation, Politics of Massage
Last week, the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards presented their long-awaited proposal for a new national continuing education approval program. They are calling it Maintenance of Core Competencies – or MOCC for short. As I indicated in my previous post, this proposal not only failed to deliver on the original promises made by FSMTB, it has turned the entire professional landscape on its ear by recommending that most continuing education should be voluntary, not mandatory for license renewal.
Under this “MOCC-ERY” of a plan, the only mandatory components of continuing education would be those FSMTB deems to be relevant to “public safety”. If that’s not bad enough, FSMTB is proposing to take control over the design and delivery of these courses. Except it isn’t continuing education … it’s proving that you still know the things you should have learned in entry-level massage training as it pertains to protection of the public.
As a licensed therapist, do you want to be taken back to subjects like Ethics 101, principles of hygiene and sanitation, and the naming of unsafe massage practices – EVERY TIME YOU HAVE TO RENEW YOUR LICENSE? I’ve been teaching professional ethics for 14 years, and frankly, I find this proposal to be an insult to my intelligence.
I was very gratified today to receive the press release from AMTA denouncing the plan. In part, important communication states:
“AMTA reviewed the proposal and has many concerns with the approach of the FSMTB, the proposal itself, its inconsistencies and the lack of support provided for their view. Some of our specific areas of concern are: READ MORE…
Comments (1) Posted by Laura Allen on Wednesday, March 14th, 2012
Filed under Education, Ethics, Massage, Massage Associations, Massage Legislation, Politics of Massage
Last week, the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards published a document outlining their proposal to jump into the continuing education market. They are calling the new program Maintenance of Core Competency – to be abbreviated as “MOCC”. I don’t know what planet this thing came from, but it sure ain’t from this solar system.
Coming fast on the heels of the unresolved conflict-of-interest mess with the FSMTB President spearheading legislation in her home state of Iowa that would eliminate the education hours from that massage law, the timing of this MOCC release is strange, to say the least.
But let me get to the main event here: When you have a problem on your hands, there’s nothing more aggravating than a solution that is worse than the original problem itself. That’s exactly what has happened.
For many years, those of us who teach continuing education courses, as well as the sponsors of continuing education, have had to put up with an absurd and ineffective system for CE approvals. Most regulated professions have a single national entity that handles this function; we have the national provider approval program run by NCBTMB, as well as individual approval processes operated by about 10 state massage boards. The standards are inconsistent, and it forces CE providers to go through redundant and costly approval processes to be able to offer their courses in more than one location.
There was a cause for hope when we started to see some activity about this last year at the national level. In a press release entitled “FSMTB to Establish New Continuing Education Approval Program” (dated March 29, 2011), the organization announced:
“…the launch of a project to develop a new national program for the approval of both continuing education courses and providers. Once it is established, the program will provide state regulatory agencies with a centralized quality assurance process for all courses taken by massage and bodywork therapists for the renewal of State licensure or State certification. READ MORE…..
Comments (2) Posted by Laura Allen on Monday, March 5th, 2012
Filed under Business, Education, Ethics, General, Massage, Massage Associations, Massage Legislation, Politics of Massage
Iowa House File 2342 has been on my radar for several weeks (initially introduced as HF 2126). Yesterday, I received a further communication on it, which stated that “the bill as written will not be brought up for consideration unless Matt Windschitl (the sponsor of the bill) requests it. The understanding is he will hold the bill until next year so there will be time for positive feedback from the profession and new language can be, at that time, introduced with the support of the massage community.”
That’s good, because at this time, it doesn’t have the support of anyone except the misguided person who set it in motion, nor should it.
I was initially stunned at the poorly-written and ill-conceived bill that eliminates the education requirement for massage therapy, which is currently 600 hours. The first draft of the bill I saw just struck through the education requirement altogether, although line 25 still says “meets or exceeds Iowa’s educational requirements.” This upset me to the point that I called on several Iowa residents and people in the know, who basically assured me that it was a “placeholder” bill….a simple explanation of a placeholder bill is that “the deadline for introducing any bills is imminent, and we’ve got to get something in there now that we can revise later”….one of those quirks of politics.
As of February 21, I hate to report that the revision doesn’t look any better. The language getting rid of the 600-hour requirement is still there, and nothing to take it’s place. READ MORE…
Comments (1) Posted by Laura Allen on Sunday, February 26th, 2012
Filed under Education, General, Massage, Massage Associations, Massage Legislation, Politics of Massage
I get at least two or three questions a week from massage therapists who intend to move to another state–or horrors–have already moved and found out that they can’t practice massage in their new destination. It’s a sad state of affairs. That’s particularly so when the person has been practicing 20 years or so, but they either a) don’t have the proper amount of education, b) haven’t taken the exam required in that state or c) both of the above. As a former state board member who served on the license standards committee, I also spent a lot of time reviewing those applications for “licensing by endorsement,” a procedure that we had in place to address that issue. Sometimes people get licensed; sometimes they don’t.
We have kind of a weird situation in North Carolina. Our state no longer accepts the National Certification exams for entry-level licensing. We exclusively accept the MBLEx, unless you’re moving in from out of state and you’re already Nationally Certified. In that case, you don’t have to take the MBLEx, but you do still have to prove that you’ve had the proper amount of education. It’s strange to me that the NCBTMB exams are considered okay for citizens from out of state, but not our own citizens.
There are still many states that have the minimum 500-hour education requirement. My state does. However, we’re picky about how that’s broken down. If your 500 hours from out of state doesn’t match up to the breakdown of our 500 hours, you can be refused a license until you bring yourself into compliance by taking additional classes at a community college or through continuing education. While moving is a choice for most people, I feel particularly bad for those therapists who are moving with a military spouse and not able to get licensed in their new state without jumping through a lot of hoops and going to a lot of expense. READ MORE…
Comments (1) Posted by Laura Allen on Monday, February 6th, 2012
Filed under Education, Ethics, General, Massage
This year I wrapped up five years of service on the North Carolina Board of Massage & Bodywork Therapy. Anyone who has ever sat on a board will probably agree with me that disciplinary hearings involving massage therapists are one of the most stressful parts of that job. It was for me. I estimate that during my time on the Board, I had to sit through approximately fifty of them. It was very distressing to see my fellow massage therapists trying to defend themselves–and in a few cases, just outright admitting to the violation–whenever they were accused of something.
Nine times out of ten, the accusation was of a sexual nature. 99 times out of 100, it involved a male therapist. I’m dead certain there are female therapists out there performing sexual favors every day, but most men won’t come forward to complain about it. Go figure.
My question to myself at those hearings was always this: “Did this person have an intent to do something evil, or was this a communication breakdown or simple mistake that could have happened to you or me?”
If you’ve been practicing longer than a year or two, the chances are good that in spite of your best efforts, you have accidentally exposed a body part. Or you have said something that the instant it left your mouth, you thought “why did I say that?” The very first massage I ever gave, I accidentally touched the man’s penis. I went to tuck in the drape, and all I can say is there it was. He was supine on the table, his eyes were closed, and when my hand grazed it, I saw his eyebrows shoot up. I said “I’m sorry,” and carried on. If I had made a big deal out of it, I could have just made it worse than what it was.
If your only intent is to give a therapeutic massage, then your major obligation is not just about giving the massage; it is clear and direct client communication. READ MORE….
Comments (0) Posted by Laura Allen on Saturday, December 31st, 2011