Category: Legislation of Massage

Posted on

The Financial Health of Our Organizations: NCBTMB

Note: For the past few years I have done a series of reports on the financial status of the non-profit organizations that represent the massage therapy profession. I obtain this information from Guidestar, a financial information clearinghouse for non-profits. The organizations can provide their Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax) to Guidestar, and if they don’t, the IRS does it for them. I will state for the record that I am not an accountant or a financial analyst; I just report what I see (and maybe offer a few opinions). I usually get asked the question every year why I am not reporting on ABMP. Associated Bodywork & Massage Professionals is a privately-owned for-profit company, and they are not obligated to release their financial information. Non-profits are on a different filing schedule than the rest of us, and there is variance amongst them in when their fiscal year ends. The deadline for filing is the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of their fiscal year. An organization can also request and receive up to two 90-day extensions, and due to the number who haven’t filed yet for 2011, it appears that some of them have done that.

The National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork has filed their 2011 Form 990 in a timely manner so I’m going to start with them this year. I’ll be following that up with my report on the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards. The financial status of these two organizations are intertwined for one reason: since it’s introduction in 2008, the MBLEx has taken a substantial market share of the entry-level exam market away from the NCBTMB. For many years, the NCBTMB exams were enjoying a monopoly, except for the few states that require their own exam.

In 2008, the first year that the MBLEx was available, the NCBTMB’s revenue from exams was in excess of $6 million. By 2011, that had dropped to $3,380,813. Instead of a monopoly, they had a 47% share of the market. I confess that I was expecting it to be even less, since the Federation has relentlessly encouraged their member states to use the MBLEx exclusively. I think the fact that the NCBTMB has retained as much as they have is proof that plan has not yet come to fruition. The income at the NCBTMB from people recertifying dropped by a little over $5k, and sales of their exam guide were down about $17k. Sales of their mailing list also took about a $20k hit this year.

They are showing a total revenue of $5,357,738 for 2011. From 2010 to 2011, the NCBTMB’s total revenue went down to the tune of $443,312. That’s not exactly a shocking figure in this time of recent recession.

The 2011 return, due to the timing of the NCB’s fiscal year, reports the salary of former CEO Paul Lindamood; although the filing was signed by his replacement Mike Williams. Lindamood’s compensation and benefits amounted to over $257,000. No word on what Mike Williams is doing the job for. Non-profits have to report the breakdown of compensation of officers, directors, trustees, key employees, highest compensated employees, and independent contractors. All together, the NCBTMB paid out over $1.7 million in compensation during 2011. Their other major expense is over $1.3 million in exam administration fees.

The bottom line is what tells the tale for most businesses–for profit or not–and their net revenue after expenses for 2011 is $227,326 which is down over $240,000 from 2010.When you consider that during Paul Lindamood’s reign at the helm, the organization went from being almost $270,000 in the hole in 2009 to having a net income of over $469,000 in 2010, it looks like it’s time to either slash expenses, the way he did, or generate more money.

That’s exactly what the NCBTMB hopes will happen in the coming year(s) on both fronts. They are rolling out the new rules for national certification, as well as the new rules for continuing ed providers, and doing away with organizational approval. The requirement that each individual be approved as a provider in their own right should generate some additional funds. The new rules for becoming nationally certified, in my humble opinion, is initially going to cause a further decrease for them. Since the new rules are jacking up the education requirement from 500 hours to 750, and requiring 250 hours of work experience, that will automatically disqualify people who might have otherwise taken the exam for entry-level licensing. The NESL is still an option in some states, but with the entry-level exam revenue steadily declining for the past four years, and the MBLEx becoming more firmly entrenched with the member states as time goes on, I’d be surprised if they don’t continue to lose ground in that market.

Their expenses could go back down. The application and recertification processes are online, and that’s going to knock a few staff members out of a job. They spent about $40k more in 2011 attending conventions than in 2010. I feel that they should be present at all major massage meetings, so I don’t begrudge that money…conventions are never held at Motel 6 so unless I’m an invited speaker, I feel that one in my own pocketbook. Legal expenses also increased by about $13k this year, but lobbying decreased by almost that same amount. It does cost money to go in and challenge a state that is considering dropping your exam–or appealing to one that has already dropped it to reinstate it.

On a positive note, total assets increased by about $70k, while total liabilities decreased by about $142,000.

All in all, it wasn’t the best year they’ve ever had–and it wasn’t the worst, either. The NCBTMB has had some administrations in years gone by that seemed hellbent on bankrupting the organization. I feel pretty safe in saying that isn’t the case here; they have some dedicated staff and board members that are determined to make it work, and we’ll just have to wait and see what happens. In the meantime, their new website is very snappy. You can check it out and all the new changes they are implementing at www.ncbtmb.org

Posted on

Politics and Cliques

This week’s blog is about the elections at the upcoming Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards annual meeting in New Orleans on September 27-29. Who gets chosen to serve on the Board of Directors of this organization is important, because FSMTB controls the administration of the MBLEx– the primary licensing exam in our profession, and is in the process of trying to adopt new national standards for continuing education.

These upcoming elections are shaping up to be a joke, and a bad one at that. I reported last week on the bylaw changes that have resulted in handing over all the power that should belong to the Member Boards to a 3-person Nominating Committee, removed the Delegates’ rights to nominate anyone from the floor, took the power of choosing officers out of the hands of the Delegates and put it into the hands of the Board of Directors, and extended the total length of time a Board member can serve to three 3-year terms.

I don’t know who the Nominating Committee has chosen as their “slate” candidates, but I can tell you some of the people they have overlooked. Two of them are sitting members of the FSMTB Board of Directors: Phyllis Salyers of Tennessee and Billie Shea of Nevada. Both are eligible, and as far as I can tell, both are qualified. Shea was in fact just reelected as the Chair of the Nevada State Board of Massage Therapists for the seventh time. Salyers has been off the Tennessee Board of Massage Licensure for about a year, but still acts as a consultant to the Board and under the Bylaws of the FSMTB is still eligible to serve two more terms. Since they were elected the first time, one assumes that they both still possess the skill sets necessary to the job. Since both have been faithful servants to the organization, you have to wonder why they have been passed over for another term.

Another person who didn’t make the cut is Mark Dixon, currently serving as Vice-Chair of the California Massage Therapy Council. Dixon has been a massage therapist for almost 25 years and his list of qualifications and past service to massage organizations would be another whole blog. He is genuine leadership material, yet he was not even granted the courtesy of an interview by the Nominating Committee.

I actually have the biggest issue, not with the candidates, but with the Bylaw change allowing the Board of Directors to serve three 3-year terms. Since Board members can continue to serve after their service to their state massage board is over, this could effectively result in the entire Board of Directors being composed of people who are no longer on their state boards. I don’t think that was the intent of this organization when it was started–and their very name indicates that.

The issue, to me, is that when you are no longer on a state board, you are no longer obligated to follow the agenda of that board, whatever it may be. In fact, as a non-board member, you are in all likelihood not even privy to the goings-on behind closed doors when there is an executive session.  You can have your own little agenda, and that’s what I find disturbing. Due to the various election schedules of the FSMTB Member Boards, I am not suggesting that anyone should be thrown off in the midst of their term, but I think serving out that term is the way to go–and then let another sitting board member have that position.

So, here we have no nominations from the floor; a 3-person committee deciding who is best for the job instead of all the delegates from 42 Member Boards getting to put forth someone they might like to nominate; two sitting members denied another term in spite of their service and qualifications and bylaws that currently allow them to serve; a well-qualified applicant denied; and bylaw changes that are totally contrary to what is in the best interests of the state boards.

Out here in the heartland of the massage therapy profession, we’re counting on our colleagues who do the usually thankless job of representing state boards to do the courageous thing here. I will make another plea for the Delegate Assembly to stand up at the annual meeting, say that this is not acceptable, and to propose amendments to the FSMTB Bylaws that restore an appropriate balance of power and authority.

 

Posted on

Absolute Power Corrupts

It’s election time, and we’re being subjected to the usual rounds of propaganda, false accusations, half-truth mudslinging, and other shenanigans that accompany campaigns. It’s also election time at the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards, and I’ve been watching their shenanigans with the same sense of “did they really say/do that?” I’ve felt about the politicians.

Just to remind you: FSMTB is a non-profit that exists to serve its “Member Boards” – the various state boards that regulate the practice of massage therapy. This organization has a lot of clout in the field, because its member agencies are the ones that regulate massage at the state level, and in some cases, massage schools and massage establishments as well.

Non-profits have a governing Board of Directors (BOD) that sets policy and controls the hiring of key professional staff. In the case of FSMTB, there is another body within the organization that has the power to set policy and shape the strategic direction FSMTB should take: it’s called the Delegate Assembly. This group, comprised of one representative from each state board, typically gathers each year at the FSMTB Annual Meeting—which is coming up on September 27-29 in New Orleans.

You might be thinking, “What’s her problem here? Sounds like regular stuff to me!” Well, I’m clanging the alarm bell because the control of FSMTB has been shifting into fewer, and tighter hands. I’m talking about the FSMTB Board of Directors (who are elected), and the Executive Director (who is hired by the Board). It’s hard to believe that this shift has happened in plain view, and with the consent of the Delegate Assembly.

What has happened is that the Member Boards have given up their power, seemingly without a fight. Over the past couple of years, there have been changes made to the Federation Bylaws that I find unacceptable, personally. I’m a former delegate to the Federation myself, and I would never have rolled over for such a thing.

From Section 5. Nomination and Election of Officers and Directors, the FSMTB Bylaws have changed to prevent any nominations for seats on the Board of Directors coming from the floor during the Annual Meeting. They have also changed the method of electing the FSMTB officers–President, Vice President and Treasurer. Originally, officers were elected by a majority vote of the Delegate Assembly, but that has been changed so that the officers are now elected by the Board of Directors themselves.

In addition to these two changes, the provision specifying the term of office and maximum number of consecutive terms was changed. In the original Bylaws, Directors served two-year terms, with a max of eight consecutive years on the Board. Now, they are elected to three-year terms, with a max span of nine consecutive years. That’s a long time to hang around on a volunteer board — especially when the Board member may no longer be serving on their own state massage board.

So in this new system, a three-person Nominating Committee has full control over naming the “slate” candidate for a BOD seat, and determining who else (if anyone) may be on the ballot for that given seat. Does that strike you as Inside Politics? Sure does for me.

The combination of 1) taking nominating power away from the Delegates themselves, 2) taking the power to elect officers away from the Member Boards and putting it in the hands of the BOD, and 3) expanding the term of Directors to three years and a total of nine consecutive years on the BOD, has consolidated power in the hands of the BOD to a shocking and unacceptable degree. It is unhealthy, and contrary to the spirit in which Member Boards carry out their commitments to the represent public interest.

With that said, if there can be an uproar and outrage created over this power grab, the Delegate Assembly could change the FSMTB Bylaws on the spot at the Annual Meeting, according to Article XI, Section 3 of the Bylaws:

Section 3. Adoption without prior notice.
These Bylaws may also be amended at any meeting of the Delegate Assembly at which a quorum is present without previous notice by nine-tenths of all Delegates present and voting; provided that the proposed amendment has been distributed in formal written form at the beginning of the meeting.

Otherwise, Bylaw amendments must be submitted in writing to Member Boards at least 45 days in advance of the Delegate Assembly. Now, it’s probably a long shot to get a near-unanimous vote on such a thing, but it’s certainly possible.

Incidentally, the Nominating Committee that is listed on the FSMTB website is not the current committee. I hear that the committee members this year are actually Susan Beam (NC), Cathy Lescak (GA) and Chris Sluss (TN). Somebody should alert the FSMTB webmaster to this oversight.

I strongly urge the Delegates to the FSMTB Annual Meeting to take a good hard look at what has taken place. It’s time to regroup and repeal these ridiculous amendments later this month in New Orleans. You have the ability to bring the power back to the Member Boards to directly choose the people who will represent the organization, and you need to reclaim your ability to set policy. Do what you were charged to do–represent your state board–and don’t be a bunch of sheeple. The state boards are on their way to becoming little more than window dressing at the Annual Meeting if you don’t assert yourselves this time. Absolute power corrupts. We’ve all seen it happen in other organizations in our profession. Don’t allow it to happen here.

 

Posted on

I’m in Pain

Yes, I’m in pain. Believe it or not, it pains me to write negatively about the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork. I am personally acquainted with many of the people who work there, from the CEO, Mike Williams, on down, to Board members, staff members and volunteers. I count some of them among my friends. I know for a fact that they are dedicated and hard-working people.

I’ve been NCTMB since 2000 and an approved provider of CE since 2002. I’ve seen the ups and the downs of the organization: the days of great service, and the days of bad service. I’ve seen the leaders who had the best interests of the profession at  heart–and one or two who were on a personal mission to bring down the organization with their wild spending and lack of professional ethics. And I’ve seen–and even been a party to–some of their missteps. A couple of years ago when they announced an advanced certification exam, I signed right on. I even appeared in an advertising campaign for it, along with quite a few other well-known massage therapists, educators, and even some illustrious physicians. The failure of that project, I believe, was because it was a general thing, and not a specialty certification–which the profession has been requesting for quite some time.

CEO Mike Williams responded to my Wish List blog last week. I met Williams at the AFMTE meeting a couple of months ago and spent a very enjoyable couple of hours talking with him one-on-one. I hear (from other folks, he wasn’t bragging) that he has a proven track record of helping floundering organizations get back on track. He even joked to me that he had learned everything he needed to know about the NCBTMB from reading my blog.

You can’t please all of the people all of the time, and I know that just from the comments I receive on this blog. However, distress at their latest action seems to be shared by more than a few people. The NCBTMB sent out an application for a new assigned school code to massage schools this week. Now, the organization has required a school code since the beginning; it’s just a number that students must include on their application to sit for one of the NCBTMB exams, and it is supposed to demonstrate that the school is legitimate. That’s good in theory; and I think the original intent was to keep schools and/or individuals from falsifying diplomas and transcripts.

A number of school owners went up in arms this week when they received the application. True, it is just seven pages long, and that’s way less than what is required for a state board school approval or COMTA accreditation…but therein lines the issue: except for the schools in the few unregulated states, these schools have already been approved by their state boards, and in some cases, one or more accrediting bodies as well.

One school owner on my FB page said “We are opting out. The list of required paperwork is oppressive. Our school is now sending them all off to the Mblex. It’s moves like this that, in my opinion, will seal the deal of completely making the NCBTMB irrelevant. We had a school code with them, we maintain state approval which can be verified easily on the state website. The additional hassle which this organization seems to thrive on is over my tolerance level.”

Another sore point is the human trafficking angle. Now, I don’t think anyone is in favor of human trafficking except the people who are making a living off of it. As background, there has been legislation introduced in a few states requiring massage establishments to post notices about human trafficking–something that isn’t required in a convenience store (in other words, they’re picking on us again, supposedly because massage is a business in which it’s a big problem). On their 2010 990 filing, the NCBTMB reported giving a $5000 donation to the Polaris Project, which fights human trafficking. They also started publishing brochures about human trafficking and selling them (at 2.50 for 25 of them, I don’t think they’re getting a big revenue stream off of that).

On the application that came out this week, school owners are being asked to sign a pledge about not participating in human trafficking, and doing whatever they can to stop human trafficking. I got calls from a few people that were upset about that; they stated to me that the NCBTMB was overstepping its boundaries and giving a false impression of having regulatory or law enforcement authority. Personally, I think any entity donating money to the Polaris Project and doing their part to fight human trafficking is admirable, but as someone on my FB page pointed out, is there really any school actually participating in such a thing that wouldn’t just sign the pledge anyway? It’s like asking people if they use illegal drugs on a job application. No one is going to write down that they have a cocaine habit, are they?

On the NCBTMB website, there are a couple of dozen schools listed as having their school code suspended, revoked, or denied. The reasons are not given, so one doesn’t know whether they were found to be participating in human trafficking, running a diploma mill, or what.

In his response on my blog, CEO Mike Williams talked about the forthcoming improvements from the NCB. Let me say, as much as it pains me: different singer, same song. I must make it clear that I have wanted this organization to survive, and thrive, but I am very concerned. And as Angela Palmier pointed out in her comments, people laughed when there was talk of another entity creating a licensing exam. In the meantime, the MBLEx has proceeded to saturate the market and it will just continue to get bigger and bigger–even if the NCBTMB steps in to challenge the states’ right to choose, like they did last week in Tennessee. They did actually prevail there, but at what cost? The Board members were upset, the GR rep from AMTA was upset, and in the end, the decision for the Board to acquiesce was based on their desire not to see their other impending legislation get scrapped in the crossfire.

In addition to the FSMTB sticking their toe in the water to test the profession’s reaction to their CE plan, I’ve recently been contacted by several people about starting (yet another) CE approval body. It wouldn’t happen overnight, but there’s no reason to think it can’t be done. For that matter, there is nothing to prohibit another entity from starting another certification agency….just like there are numerous accrediting agencies besides COMTA. It could happen.

I don’t doubt that the NCBTMB has good intentions–but as we all know, good intentions are sometimes misguided. Placing an additional and very unnecessary burden on school  owners is misguided and the perception is that it’s one more example of duplicated efforts in this profession. Challenging state boards is misguided. The NCB needs all the public support they can get, and that isn’t winning them any friends. It is creating ill will, period. Hanging on to entry-level licensing instead of focusing on  becoming the one true certification agency is misguided. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

 

Posted on

It’s All About Me

It’s all about me, so here’s my wishlist for the profession. It’s difficult to place these in order of importance, because some of them depend on each other, and in my little corner of massage, they’re all important. It’s election time–aren’t we all just about sick of hearing about it–candidates mudslinging and making campaign promises? If I was the President of Massage Land, here’s what I’d do:

The Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards would sit down at the table with the National Certification Board and hammer out an agreement to a) help ease the NCBTMB out of the entry-level test market, b) contract with them to collaboratively administer continuing education instead of trying to take it over and c) forget their MOCC-ERY plan.

The NCBTMB would a) graciously accept that it’s time for them to get out of the entry-level test market, b) focus on cleaning up the CE approval program, and c) get it together with their new plan of raising standards of certification.

Both of these entities would cease and desist in sending out Job Task Analysis Surveys that are flawed from the get-go….they both supposedly pay psychometricians to help them out with these things, and still they are falling way short of the mark in ascertaining what they really need to ascertain. Stop worrying about how many times a week we give a massage, and stop ignoring the relaxation benefits of massage as if they don’t exist.

There will continue to be Leadership Summits. They will stick to the agreed-upon agenda at their meetings and not allow major surprises  to slide in from any of the organizations, and they will practice complete transparency and stop sending out press releases that contain no more information than an invitation to a baby shower.

Every one who is involved in massage therapy education will join the Alliance for Massage Therapy Education.

The profession will come to a consensus on what constitutes required core competencies for entry-level education, while still giving school owners the autonomy and individuality to rise over and above that.

All unregulated states will get state-wide regulation and all localities will honor those and not place ridiculous additional burdens on licensed therapists.

All massage schools will be required to teach research literacy to their students, and will only hire instructors who are capable of doing so.

The NCBTMB will stop approving woo-woo courses for CE credit, and all entry-level massage schools will stop teaching it. I don’t care if you study Interplanetary Voodoo with the Archangels, but you don’t deserve any credit for doing that.

Our professional associations will conduct annual surveys that have NOTHING to do with a Job Task Analysis–the sole purpose of it will be “Tell us what you think we are doing wrong and give us your suggestions for how we could do it better.”

The Alliance for Massage Therapy Education will develop a program to offer instructor training to the masses that will be accessible and affordable–perhaps online.

Board members of all representing organizations will recognize their responsibility to not blindly follow the leader; to avoid not only conflicts of interest, but the appearance of conflicts of interest; will not put up with any cover-your-ass type behavior within their organizations; will hold their hired leadership accountable, and will have enough gumption to get rid of them if and when such behavior occurs.

All massage schools would seek COMTA approval. If your school can’t afford that or doesn’t qualify because of not meeting the hour requirement, may I say that their standards are on their website for all the world to see for free, and you could still go about the self-study process and getting things up to snuff, even if you don’t formally seek the accreditation.

All school owners would be bound to have their school bonded, so that no school goes bankrupt and leaves students in the lurch in the middle of their program.

All schools would be required to post their pass rates on the licensing and certification exams on their websites and in their catalogs.

No school owner will be allowed to say to a potential student “Don’t worry, your criminal record won’t keep you from getting a license.” It should be mandatory for it to be disclosed that they may not receive a license. The state of Texas has a non-binding review, where for $50 a person seeking a career in any licensed profession can submit their criminal record for review prior to spending their time and money on pursuing education. Every state should do the same.

There should be a national exam for instructors to prove they are competent in teaching methodology and a subject matter expert in whatever area they intend to teach.

Each state should require a jurisprudence exam. Your licensees can’t adhere to the law unless they know what it is, and the percentage of applicants who actually read your practice act in its entirety is probably less than 5%–I’m basing that on asking that question in all the classes I teach. Hardly anyone reads them, but if they had to pass a test on it, they would.

The Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge would be about massage. If you want to have an energy work body of knowledge, create that.

Everyone involved in the profession would give financial support to the Massage Therapy Foundation. Give $100. Give $5. Give $1. Give whatever you can afford to give, just do it.

I could probably go on for days, but I have other chores to get to today. I invite my readers to add what they will. What’s on YOUR wishlist? What’s on mine that you object to, and why?

 

 

Posted on

If at first you don’t succeed….

Try, try again. That’s what the regulatory board in my home state of North Carolina is recommending when it comes to getting the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards to do something about the confusing status of continuing education approvals.

Two years ago, the NC Board of Massage & Bodywork Therapy introduced a resolution at the Annual Meeting of the FSMTB (which was held in Puerto Rico). This document instructed the Federation’s Board of Directors to “begin the process of developing a new national approval program for continuing education providers and courses.” The organization’s leadership responded positively to the resolution, and announced to the profession in the Spring of 2011 the launch of a comprehensive project to do just that. They also invited AFMTE, AMTA and ABMP to work with them to provide input that would help shape the project.

In spite of this clearly stated intention to develop a “centralized quality assurance process for all courses taken by massage and bodywork therapists for the renewal of State licensure or State certification” (quoted verbatim from the FSMTB press release dated 3/29/11), the outcome of this process missed the mark by a country mile. The MOCC Proposal, which stands for Maintenance of Core Competencies, failed to deliver what the state boards asked for, and what FSMTB promised.

To remind you, the MOCC Proposal was based on a new (and unproven) concept of separating continuing education that relates to “public protection” from all other CE that is taken for “professional development”. MOCC recommended that only CE related to “public protection” be required by state boards for renewal of licensure, and everything else be put into the voluntary category, to be regulated by… well, the proposal didn’t even mention NCBTMB. If this all weren’t bad enough, FSMTB would become the exclusive provider of coursework needed to maintain “core competency” in the subjects related to “public protection”.

For more background on the MOCC issue, refer to my blog posts of 3/14/12 and 4/15/12.

In a friendly game of golf, you can take a “mulligan” every now and again–a “do-over”. My colleagues at the NC Board are giving the FSMTB leadership an opportunity to take a mulligan on this vitally important CE approval issue. They have recently submitted another resolution to be discussed by Member Boards at the upcoming FSMTB Annual Meeting in New Orleans on September 27-29. This resolution is much like the original from two years ago, and its appearance at this point in time indicates that the need for a single-source national CE approval program has not gone away.

The primary rationale is contained in this statement from the new resolution:
“Reliance upon the NCB Approved Provider program has been problematic for state boards because (a) NCB is a private, non-profit corporation that lacks oversight from and accountability to state regulatory boards; (b) its program has not adequately evaluated the quality or relevance of CE courses; (c) administration of this program has had notable service delivery problems over an extended period of time.”

That’s all true, but the opera ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings. The NCBTMB has the infrastructure already in place–and this will be nothing more than another case of duplicated efforts if the Federation steps in and tries to take it away without consideration of the NCB’s position in that marketplace. I think a collaboration would be more appropriate; by contracting with the NCB to administer CE approvals, FSMTB could establish the accountability structure that state boards must have with NCB, and FSMTB wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel. They could just improve upon it.

Yesterday, I conducted one of my Scientific Facebook Polls, and asked the questions: How many MTs REALLY care what is happening with our professional organizations and what they are doing? How many people care about the MTBOK, the ELAP, the MOCC (don’t y’all love all these acronyms) or even know what they really are? How many people care about the legislation and regulation of massage? How many people care that there are initiatives to raise standards for teachers of massage therapy and for massage education in general? Do you care about all those things, or would you rather just be left alone to do massage?

I got 75 replies in a 24-hour period, and one thing is apparent: to the average massage therapist trying to make a living, many perceive our organizations to be all about politics and all about money. To some extent, that’s true…the one with the most money wins. The perception is also that they all have their own agendas. Actually, recently some of them seem to have the same agenda, but they’ve wasted time and money in duplicating efforts, or opposing each other’s efforts, and scrapping over turf wars. In a recent blog I urged the NCBTMB to take themselves out of the entry-level exam market and suggested that the FSMTB assists them financially in return for their doing so. Earlier this week, in a piece published in Massage Today, Ralph Stephens called on AMTA and ABMP to offer “substantial and ongoing financial support” to COMTA and AFMTE, to further their important efforts to improve the quality of massage therapy education.

FSMTB and the NCB have recently conducted new Job Task Analysis surveys, both of them seriously flawed, in my humble opinion. These surveys show a strong bias towards the clinical/medical side of massage therapy, and contain virtually nothing about the KSA’s related to delivering massage therapy as a primary means of facilitating well-being and integration. From my perspective, the latter is of equal or greater importance.

In addition, the FSMTB survey has a special add-on section to gather data for the Entry-Level Analysis Project (ELAP). This dual-purpose survey does ask lots of questions about specific medical conditions, but it contains nothing about the client/therapist relationship. The word “relax” does not appear anywhere, and the word “relaxation” shows up just once.

There’s also an over-focus on the huge number of modalities that are marketed in this field. Many of these listed are obscure and little-understood. It’s wrong to ask a therapist to define themselves by a single named modality. Practitioners typically use a broad range of methods with clients. The modality is not the treatment — it’s the totality of what a practitioner brings to the session.

Finally, this Federation JTA is similar to the recent JTA from NCBTMB: another duplicated effort that still falls short of giving an accurate picture of what happens in the real world of massage therapy. You can count how many times a week we give a massage or take SOAP notes, but that’s not what it’s really about. It’s about our rapport with the client, and what kind of results we are able to produce, and what kind of trust we can inspire in our therapeutic relationships. The MTBOK generally missed the boat on this as well, although I have high hopes that the line-by-line analysis and re-mapping of the MTBOK that was conducted by AFMTE will give us a usable body of knowledge.

As a result of these large-scale projects, it’s likely that the kind of incomplete and disjointed training that is typical in our field will get further enshrined as the baseline for education. Skewed survey questions produce skewed data. Using that data to build a new standard for the entire field is not just wrong, it’s a crime against the lineage of massage therapy. Just look at what has happened to the other health care professions who have organized themselves around the mechanistic/reductionistic model. People are treated as parts, and no discipline ever looks at the whole person. Massage therapists still have the ability to treat holistically. Relaxation is being relegated to a lower-class status of therapeutic effect, when it’s one of the most valuable aspects we offer with this work.

This whole scenario illustrates one thing: the time has never been more ripe for getting our act together, and that isn’t going to happen while there’s all this push and pull and one-upmanship going on with the organizations. When the leaders of the seven primary stakeholder groups sat down at the table for the first time last September, the ELAP proposal appeared out of nowhere–it wasn’t even on the agenda and it got slid in anyway. I would like to see them sit down again, and take a serious look at these issues. Put ego and profit aside. Take a real look at the flaws in your information-gathering processes. If you want to see what massage therapists really think, sign on to my Facebook page and you might get a rude awakening at their opinions of you. You wouldn’t exist without us, and what we think does matter. A Job Task Analysis survey asks what we do--and frankly, it isn’t near as important as what we think. Consider that.

 

Posted on

NCBTMB: Quit the Small Stuff and Take the Bold Step

Nearly two years ago, the Tennessee Board of Massage Licensure voted to change its rule pertaining to the examinations approved for licensure of massage therapists. They chose to adopt the Massage & Bodywork Licensing Examination offered by FSMTB as the only approved exam – and sunset the use of the National Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork offered by NCBTMB.

That decision was entirely within the Board’s authority, and was based on the fact that the MBLEx is owned and administered by FSMTB, which consists of its Member Boards. This structure gives state regulatory boards direct ownership and supervision over this exam, which has never been the case with the use of NCBTMB’s private certification exams for state licensure purposes.

Rule changes can sometimes take a long time to make their way through the administrative process, and Tennessee’s exam rule just came up yesterday for final approval before a committee of the State Senate. This could and should have been a simple legislative rubber stamp of an agency decision, but NCBTMB threw a monkey wrench into the works by sending in a representative to oppose the rule change.

I was told last year by former NCBTMB CEO Paul Lindamood that they were swearing off the battle against the MBLEx, and would no longer challenge state massage board actions around exam approvals. He stated to me at the time that he knew they weren’t making any friends by doing so. The new CEO, Mike Williams, who came on board last September, apparently does not share that point of view.

At the committee hearing, the Senators stayed the decision on the rule change for another 30 days and sent the matter back to the Board for further consideration. According to my sources, the hearing went poorly, with legislators failing to understand the difference in the exams, state board members unable to answer the question about what the pass rate is on the exam, and general confusion leading to the stay instead of a decision.

I spoke to NCBTMB President Alexa Zaledonis today, who stated that “We didn’t go to Tennessee to fight, but to state our position. There are still people who want to take our exams and we support them having a choice. We never desire to create controversy in the states. We have quality licensing exams, a lot of people do like them and ask us to help keep them available in their states. No malicious intent, just a desire to let those people have a choice and so we try to stand up for them in an appropriate fashion.”

Earlier this year, there was an ugly ruckus in Ohio over a similar kind of rule change. It ended in a Massage Therapy Advisory Committee member being removed after he asked the NCBTMB during the hearing: “How much money will it take to make you go away?” It was deemed unprofessional conduct at best, and an offer of a bribe at worst.

While I hate the way the question was put forth, it has more than a little basis in reality. I personally would paraphrase that to: “How much money will it take for you to get out of the entry-level licensing exam business?” 38 states are still accepting the NCBTMB exams, but all you have to do is look at NCB’s financials (available on Guidestar.org) to see that they’ve had their butt kicked by the MBLEx. The MBLEx is a licensing exam used for licensing purposes. It’s the right tool for the job, and the marketplace has affirmed it by an overwhelming margin. The state boards themselves don’t derive income from the MBLEx; FSMTB is a non-profit organization (as is NCBTMB) and the Member Boards pay annual dues to the Federation.

If you’ve been reading my blog for long, you know that this is a relatively new opinion of mine –that the NCBTMB should get out of the entry-level exam market. I argued against that for a number of years. Rick Rosen, (a fellow North Carolinian and industry thought leader), has argued that point with me here on this blog and in other forums a number of times, as have others, and I resisted that change for a long time. However, I finally came around to Rosen’s point of view. A few months ago when NCBTMB announced the creation of a new post-graduate Board Certification credential and the ending of the current entry-level National Certification credential, I truly felt like it was the best move to be made.

The issue is that ever since the appearance of the MBLEx, the value of being Nationally Certified has largely gone by the wayside. I’ve heard many accusations that the MBLEx is an easier test than the National Certification Exam. This is not a valid argument, because these are two different tests created for entirely different purposes. The real point here is that National Certification no longer distinguishes therapists from the pack like it did back in the days when it was the only credentialing exam in the massage therapy field. I have personally been NCTMB for 12 years. I have always maintained my certification, even after the MBLEx appeared, but I know many therapists who have let it go because they’ve reached the belief that it doesn’t mean anything in the marketplace.

Under the new plan, Board Certification includes the requirements of 750 hours of education, passing a new higher-level exam, 250 hours of hands-on experience, keeping CPR certification current, and a criminal background check. Those who are already Nationally Certified will not have to take the new exam. In our conversation today, Zaledonis stated “Our Board Certification exam is created to test individuals who have achieved 750 hours of education and are at a level of expertise that exceeds an entry level graduate. Over 8000 individuals responded to our JTA, these answers (after psychometric interpretation) along with a panel of subject matter experts were used to differentiate between a entry level licensed practitioner and a certified practitioner. Our Certification test is different from a licensing exam in that it uses more cognitive thinking over just recall using innovative items over traditional. This test, coupled with the other requirements, are the start of a program that truly differentiates licensing from certification.”

I personally know many of the people on the staff and on the Board of the NCBTMB. I have no doubts about their dedication to the profession, and when it comes down to it, the organization isn’t an island. A CEO serves at the pleasure of the Board, and Board members have to reach a consensus. Apparently the members who are currently serving the NCBTMB have agreed to follow this path of continuing to challenge state boards, and that distresses me. I think it is a misguided effort, no matter how good their intentions. Even the name of the organization speaks to that: National Certification Board. It isn’t the National Licensing Board. There isn’t a National License. There is no portability, and the swirling sewer of argument and confusion around the exams is not helping the situation. I think the time is ripe for the NCBTMB to get out of the entry-level market altogether and focus 100% of their resources on the development and rollout of their new post-graduate credential. This IS something that our profession needs, and I urge the NCB leadership to let go of the past and turn towards the future.

I imagine that money is a primary factor in the organization hanging on to entry-level testing, and in the decision to continue challenging state boards that are ready to drop them. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that states don’t want a private certification organization coming in and telling them how to run their business. State board members are normally unpaid volunteers who give up home, family and work time to serve a board….and to have an outside party come in and tell them they did the wrong thing doesn’t sit very well, (as I personally know). I don’t want to see the NCBTMB crippled to the vanishing point. Going around challenging state agencies is expensive, and it doesn’t win them any friends.

So here we are with a Catch-22. It’s time for NCBTMB to exit the entry-level testing business, but they don’t have the money to sustain them while the new Board Certification program is getting built. They need a bridge to help them get where we would like them to go.

There is a straightforward solution to this situation. Since the lion’s share of revenue from entry-level testing has shifted over to FSMTB, they now have a significant cash reserve. It is in the best interests of their Member Boards to bring a quick and painless end to the “exam wars” and to establish the MBLEx as the single standardized exam for state licensure. The profession as a whole will benefit, and portability for therapists will be improved.

What needs to happen is that NCBTMB declares that it will no longer offer any of its exams for state licensure purposes as of a certain date. In exchange, FSMTB will give NCBTMB a certain amount of money over a period of time to compensate it for this move. The mechanism for this process is called a Transfer Agreement, and there is a clear precedent we can look at.

For many years, the American Physical Therapy Association owned and operated the national exam used by state PT boards for licensure. APTA (like our own AMTA) is a private non-profit membership association, with no accountability to state PT boards. Because of the same inherent problems we’ve finally come to recognize, the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy entered into negotiations with APTA, and engineered a Transfer Agreement to take over that exam in the late ’80s. It’s worked like a charm ever since. Physical Therapy has 50-state licensure, and a lot more consistency in their state-to-state regulations than we have in the massage field.

Having one standardized national licensing exam is one of the hallmarks of a profession. We are at a critical juncture, where the opportunity to take a major step towards professional status is within our grasp. This will take the willingness and cooperation of the leaders of both NCBTMB and FSMTB to come together to work out the details of this agreement.

Let’s stop wasting time on the small stuff. Take the bold step, for the betterment of all.

 

 

 

Posted on

Report from the AFMTE Annual Meeting

I spent last weekend in toasty Tucson, AZ at the Alliance for Massage Therapy Education annual meeting, and for the third year in a row since this organization started, it was one of the best things I have ever attended. There were quite a few new people attending this year, and attendance was up slightly from last year. The meeting was held at the El Conquistador resort, a beautiful venue with gorgeous mountain and desert views.  I was late getting there and unfortunately missed the opening ceremony and the keynote presentation by Benny Vaughn, which I heard was fantastic.

As usual, there were great continuing education offerings…I attended Tracy Walton’s class on “Busting Myths and Critical Thinking Skills,” which was informative and entertaining, and I heard nothing but praise from attendees of the other classes, which included offerings by Stephanie Beck, Martha Brown Menard, Susan Beam, Cherie Sohnen-Moe, Terrie Yardly-Nohr, Nancy Dail, Pat Benjamin, and Ben Benjamin. Bear in mind, these classes aren’t your average CE class–they are directed at massage therapy educators. When these great teachers weren’t teaching a class, they could be found attending someone else’s class. That is one of the most wonderful things about this gathering to me; it is attended by some of the most well-respected and well-known educators in this profession–and they all have the attitude that they’re not finished learning. Kudos to every one of them.

Nancy Dail organized a “Meet the Authors” gathering, and it was amazing. I was humbled to be included in such awesome company. I doubt if I can name all these people   in the correct order in the picture so I won’t even try. Mark Beck was out of the room when the picture was taken but he was present as well. The group included (in alphabetical order) Timothy Agnew, Sandra K. Anderson, Pat Archer, Ben Benjamin, Pat Benjamin, Andrew Biel, Celia Bucci, Iris Burman, Nancy Dail, Sandy Fritz, Julie Goodwin, Martha Menard-Brown, Carole Osborne, David Palmer, Cherie Sohnen-Moe, Ralph Stephens, Tracy Walton, and Terrie Yardley-Nohr. Also absent was David Lauterstein, who had an airline travel nightmare, but his book was present along with the others authored by these amazing people. I don’t know when I have ever seen such talent present in one room.

All the major organizations had representatives in attendance, with the exception of ABMP. I’m not sure if they were making a statement by not showing up or not. I had actually spoken to Bob Benson, the Chairman of ABMP, a few days before the meeting and asked him if they would be in attendance, and he did not make any mention of political reasons for staying away…of the likely candidates that would have attended, several were on vacation, one was attending a family wedding and so forth. Still, their absence was notable, no matter what the reason. AMTA, the FSMTB, and COMTA were all in attendance. There was also chair massage offered at the meeting to benefit the Massage Therapy Foundation, and thanks to the efforts of Taya Countryman who organized that effort, over $900 was raised for the Foundation.

Elections were held, and the standing officers were all re-elected. Two new board seats were also added. The AFMTE Board has let go of their management company and are handling it themselves, and the two new board members are needed to help with the many tasks of the organization. Stephanie Beck and Heather Piper were elected as members-at-large.  I agreed to serve on the marketing committee….I don’t do boards anymore of any kind, since that would interfere with my blogging, or at least the perception thereof, but I’m glad to serve the organization on this committee.

Breakout sessions were held to discuss numerous topics of interest to educators, including all the various projects that are going on at the moment, not the least of which is the Teacher Education Standards Project. Other breakout sessions were to talk about the MOCC proposal from the FSMTB, the new policies announced by the NCBTMB, and other issues facing the profession.  There weren’t any formal votes in any of the discussions I sat in on, but a number of people I talked to all said the same thing–that there are a lot of duplicated efforts going on, which is a waste of time and resources. John Weeks, Executive Director of ACCAHC, also gave a keynote address where he stated that we have a tendency to get ourselves trapped in whirlpools–and how much influence we could have because of our sheer numbers, if we would just get out of them.

During the business meeting, President Pete Whitridge announced that the organization has no debt. That’s a fabulous position to be in, but I would like to state that we need and welcome corporate sponsors, as well as individual members. The Alliance has worked very hard to keep membership fees reasonable–and to hold our meetings in reasonable places. Although the El Conquistador is the lap of luxury and a beautiful place, we got a room rate of $99 per night. Many meals were provided as well, so financially, it’s a bargain to join. Please visit the AFMTE website to find out about the many benefits available to you as a member. There are also vendor opportunities and sponsorship opportunities at the annual meeting. Thanks to exhibitors Biotone, Bon Vital, Books of Discovery, the Center for Embodied Teacher Education, F.A. Davis, the International Association of Massage Business, Massage Envy, the Massage Therapy Foundation, Massamio, the National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts & Sciences, Performance Health/Biofreeze, Wellx, and Wolters Kluwer Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Thanks also to sponsors of the meeting, Massage Today, Massage Magazine Insurance Plus, the Florida State Massage Therapy Associaton, Massage Envy, Books of Discovery, Pearson, Biofreeze, and SOAP Vault. Soothing Touch , Oakworks, and Massage Warehouse, along with many others also donated door and raffle prizes.

On a personal note, I had a big fat time socializing with so many friends and making a few new ones. I had dinner the first night with Julie Onofrio, Kathleen Gramzay, and Karen Hobson. I met with Mike Noble, the new acquisitions editor at Lippincott, and Shauna Kelley, their marketing manager, for dinner on Friday night to discuss a couple of projects, and Saturday night, I had a blast with the team from Massamio and a bunch of other friends–both FB friends and the real variety. I went to lunch one day with Allissa Haines and Gregory Hurd…we went sneaking out to the In-and-Out-Burger for a junk food fix. I spent a couple of hours talking with Ryan Hoyme (aka The MassageNerd), and just in general enjoyed myself and enjoyed seeing everyone. I tried to sit with someone different at every meal and every class so I could visit with as many people as possible, and wish I could have personally talked to everyone there. I did have a few good but short conversations, with Sandy Fritz, Sue Toscano, Susan Beck, Mark Beck, and other good folks. As usual, there just weren’t enough hours in the day.

The biggest thanks, and deservedly so, goes to Cherie Sohnen-Moe. Tucson is Cherie’s home town, and she really went over and beyond the call of duty in helping to organize the event. She’s probably ready for a vacation!

I urge you to join the Alliance for Massage Therapy Education. We are hoping to accomplish some great things, and we need your expertise and your input. We are a non-profit organization and of course donations are welcomed, but what we’d really like is your membership fee–AND your participation. We want and appreciate active members! There are a lot of things going on in our profession right now, as I have reported right here. We need to be sure that education evolves in a way that serves the highest good of the profession, in total transparency, and that our membership gets plenty of input. That’s one thing that is very evident about this group of people–they do want to hear what the members think….and here we have some of the best and brightest minds in the business. You could almost get star-struck at this meeting–but there is not a standoffish person in the bunch. Don’t wait until the next meeting; join us now, and get involved. If you are an educator, school owner, administrator, or industry partner, we need you. And I’m going to shamelessly use the same quote that I used from Jan Schwartz at last year’s meeting: “If you’re not at the table,  you’re on the menu.”

Posted on

The ELAP Flap Continues

Earlier this week I received the ELAP (Entry-Level Analysis Project) Description from ABMP. I’ve been blogging about this for several weeks, first because I was upset that it was shrouded in secrecy; then last week because I finally got word of who is serving on this work group. While that information didn’t exactly smooth my ruffled feathers, I was gratified to see that I know some of the people working on it and know that they do the best job they can at whatever tasks they take on. And the document has changed quite a bit from the first proposal I saw, which I had numerous objections to (see previous blogs under this one). That being said, I’m still not thrilled with it.

I feel that there are some big pieces missing here, and that the profession would be better served by pointing resources in a different direction. To begin with, the document makes the point that how regulatory agencies arrived at the 500-hour minimum that has been a benchmark of entry-level education is unknown…that’s true, but it’s also unknown of how states with more hours arrived at those requirements. One thing that’s mentioned is the influence of federal financial aid, which presumably has led some schools  to offer more hours (or states to require them). As is the case with a lot of things, following the money trail often gives insight into real motivation.

Personally, I don’t think financial aid, or the lack of it, should be influencing this project at all. As a former school administrator, I’ve been involved in the financial aid process first-hand in the past. Whenever a recession and massive job layoffs happen, as they have here in my home state for the past three years or so, there’s a phenomenon that occurs. There’s an influx of displaced workers into the community college system, where financial aid is a given, and I’ve been told by students who had never even considered massage as a career that “the job counselor said I could get my schooling paid for if I would study massage.” That’s just not the reason I want to see people coming into the profession.

I feel there are some other tasks that need to be completed before anything like this is undertaken. The ELAP description states only two goals, one of which is to assess how many program hours are needed to attain this KSA (knowledge, skills, and abilities) goal, assuming capable instruction.

That’s a major issue, in my opinion—because you can’t and shouldn’t assume capable instruction. The Alliance for Massage Therapy Education is working on a National Teacher Education Standards Project to define the KSAs needed by teachers, both entry-level and more experienced/advanced. There is also a line-by-line review of the MTBOK going on. To charge headlong into the ELAP before these two initiatives are complete seems like putting the cart before the horse.  In all fairness, I am glad to see our organizations collaborating instead of refusing to play nice, but I would prefer to see them applying their resources to the National Teacher Education Standards project. The ELAP claims to be addressing what it takes to make a therapist able to practice competently. The fact is if the teachers aren’t competent in a 500-hour program, they’re not going to be any more competent in a 750-hour program until they are educated. We need educators who are competent enough to teach competencies, not just stand in front of a classroom for a longer number of hours.

Part of the rationale for this entire undertaking is the perceived  lack of competence of entry-level therapists. While the FSMTB is about to launch a new Job Task Analysis Survey, and the NCBTMB recently did the same, we ought to bear in mind what it is that a JTA shows. They tend to be snapshots of a day in the life of a massage therapist: see the clients, do the laundry, keep up the paperwork. If the perception is that therapists are not doing what they need to do in order to keep the public safe and practice competently, is asking them what they do all day really effective for this purpose? I don’t think it is. As one of the comments on last week’s blog said, “They don’t know what they don’t know.” There will be also be an accompanying survey within the JTA survey, intended to eliminate the “experience bias” present in these types of surveys, but I think that’s a tricky proposition. The return rate on these surveys tend to be very small–and usually answered by the minority of us who actually give a rip about the state of things. JTA surveys tend to be long and somewhat boring and it’s a very small percentage of people who will even fill them out to begin with.

Reportedly, the ELAP project was conceived to help address the problem of portability of massage between the states. One of the statements reads in part “we need to identify the key KSAs required to pass a national licensing exam and provide competent, safe massage in an early massage career.”

Right there is another problem. While the FSMTB would like to see every state exclusively using the MBLEx, it hasn’t yet happened. Since the NCBTMB is increasing the requirements for National Certification, leaving them with only the NESL options for entry-level exams in the states that accept those, the MBLEx will undoubtedly become exclusive in some places, but New York is not going to throw over their exam for the MBLEx, in my opinion. There is no such thing as national licensing, and there is never going to be. National licensing doesn’t exist in any profession I am aware of. If you’re a doctor, you still have to get licensed in each state in which you want to practice. While portability is a pain in the butt for massage therapists, it has never been shown to be harmful to the public or to the profession on the whole. Inconvenient, yes; but harmful, no.

The FSMTB is also working on the Model Practice Act, as mentioned in the ELAP description. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a waste of time, I don’t expect any influx of the regulated states lining up to change their existing practice acts to whatever the FSMTB comes up with. I’m sure it will be a helpful guideline for the unregulated states if and when they decide to join the fold, but it will be interesting to see how that document ends up harmonizing with the ELAP. Since the MBLEx has been an exam that uses the 500-hour threshold (and in fact, you can take that exam at any point during your education, prior to graduation), if this project somehow demonstrates that more hours are needed, is the FSMTB going to jack up the requirement to sit for the MBLEx? The Model Practice Act project was also undertaken prior to the ELAP project starting up, and while I haven’t seen a draft and don’t know what it includes, my prior knowledge of state practice acts demonstrates that those generally spell out required education and the breakdown of those hours, so presumably the ELAP would affect the Model Practice Act project as well.

Another part of the hoped-for result of this project is to cut down on the number of lawsuits and ethics complaints against entry-level massage therapists. Personally, I believe someone who is going to act unethically is going to do it regardless of how much education they have. When it comes right down to it, the injuries resulting from massage are a tiny fraction of what they are in other health-care related fields. I’m not saying there aren’t any, but on the whole it’s relatively insignificant when compared to the number of practitioners.

Lest anyone think I am against raising the standards of the profession on general principles, that’s not so. I don’t own a school, and I’m already licensed, so it’s not like this is going to inconvenience me personally. In fact, a few years ago when I was on the North Carolina Board of Massage & Bodywork Therapy, we looked at raising the hour requirement here (currently it’s 500 hours). Like any good organizational beaurocracy, the result of that was to appoint a committee to study the situation. The research they conducted was to ascertain whether or not students from schools with higher number of hours had a better pass rate on the exams than students from 500-hour schools. The answer to that was a big fat “no.”

I’m not sure how much money is being spent on this project; the first proposal I saw mentioned between $60-70,000 to be shared as an expense between the organizations. I urge, or rather, challenge, all of these organizations to pour an equal amount of money into the AFMTE Teacher Standards project. Improving the KSAs of entry-level educators—many of whom tend to be last year’s star students, who may be talented at massage but without a whit of experience and training in teaching methodology—will improve the KSAs of the students, the entry-level practitioners. That should be the important first step—the key word there being first. Don’t try to build a house without a good foundation. It’s a waste of time and money, and ultimately, it doesn’t work.

Posted on

ELAP Work Group Members Announced

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).

I am acquainted with several of the people on the work group. Cynthia Rebeiro, Pat Archer, and Elan Schacter do good work in all they endeavor to do. I would have liked it if this information had been put out there immediately, along with the rest of the details, but you don’t always get what you want. And actually, the fact that you don’t always get what you want is sometimes a good thing. As I also previously stated, the wheels of legislation turn very slowly…and just because our organizations want something to happen doesn’t mean it’s going to. If the evidence produced by this project turns out to show that 750 hours ought to be required for entry-level education, it will take many years for that to happen in every state. That’s my prediction, and I’ll be glad to take any bets on that.

I’ve been reviewing COMTA standards for the past couple of days in preparation for a site visit, and it would be great if those were a requirement for every school. I think the quality of education would increase exponentially if every school had to jump through the hoops to prove they’re doing things diligently and going beyond what most of the state boards require. I’ve also been revisiting the MTBOK, and while I still have a few issues with it, I certainly hope it is taken into consideration.

I personally still think that education should be about quality, and not quantity. 500 hours is arbitrary to me–and so is 750. Look at some of the Canadian provinces…their required hours are 4 digit numbers. Those are arbitrary too, when it comes down to it. It should be about competency, not about hours. From my own experience, and someone has made this comment to me before–in entry-level massage school, you learn what not to do. It’s when you begin practicing that you begin knowing what to do. My real education started when I walked out the massage school door, and it’s been that way for a lot of us.

This project is going to be released for comment in a couple of weeks, according to Williams. I urge everyone to take the opportunity to comment–beyond any job task analysis survey that gets spread around. Those show tasks, and don’t reflect opinion. This is of too much magnitude to the profession for opinion not to be considered. School owners in particular need to speak up. If you run a 500 hour school, how many of you can afford to increase that be 250 hours? How many would just fold? I advise you not to sit on your hands.  It’s like an election. If you don’t vote, you can’t complain, and complaining after the fact doesn’t have any impact. Express your opinion.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial