A PROPOSAL FOR AN ALTERNATE PATH TO TRAINER STATUS
AND AN ALTERNATE MODEL FOR THE
FOUR YEAR PROFESSIONAL TRAINING PROGRAMS

I welcome the invitation of the US Guild, encouraging the members to share
their ideas for enhancing the expansion of the Feldenkrais method.
My suggestions relate to changes both in the process of becoming a trainer,
and in the organization of the four year professional training programs,
which should improve the quality of acquiring the competence of the
graduates of trainings, which I believe will help to lead the method to its
deserved place in society. These changes are presented as alternative paths,
and are not intended to replace the current models.

I part from the realization that the Feldenkrais method will be advanced by
the enthusiasm of the teachers rather than from the demand of the public. By making it so difficult to become a trainer, we limit the method. Our
existing process of becoming an independent E.D. trainer requires 18 years
of investment:

4 years training
5 years practice and visiting trainings to apply for assistant status
1 year at least, for processing the application
4 years (or more) if being invited, to assist in trainings to apply for
trainer status
1 year at least, for processing the application
2 years if invited, to be a trainer in other trainings to apply for
Educational Director status
1 year processing the application for becoming an E.D. independent teacher
18 years in total.

The process to become a trainer requires also leaving home and the practice
for long periods of time in order to complete the quota of being present in
other trainings, and conditioning the promotion on getting the invitation to
teach in trainings and receiving recommendations from three trainers; this
requests the consensus of almost all the trainers who had a chance to see
the assistant teaching. Taking into consideration that a trainer who comes
to teach for 2 weeks cannot give generous teaching time to every assistant
and most of the FI sessions are done in the break when the trainer is not
always present, there is even less chance to really know the potential of
the assistant.

Not many candidates are able to fulfill those requirements and our method is
losing some of the most experienced practitioners who reached high levels of
quality and efficient insights who do not chose to leave their practice out
of their devotion and commitment to their students, which is the very
knowledge that is needed to be transmitted in trainings.

The existing procedure also discourages other practitioners to whom the
prospect of advancement seems to be beyond reach.

I suggest shifting the criteria of evaluating and granting Trainer status
from exclusively conditioning it on spending time in trainings, and instead
giving more weight to the credit the candidates gained in their practice.
The procedure to become a trainer can include visiting trainings to some
extent but not as a sole condition to be invited to work with payment for a
substantial time as it is today.

We could create a school for trainers, which will provide a more objective
opportunity, and less biased criteria. Such a school could be like a third
degree in the academy.

I suggest we agree to a quota of personal experience in a certain volume of
practice, for instance, a practitioner who has 10 years of successful
practice and who has completed

A SCHOOL FOR TRAINERS (which can include visiting some trainings not
necessarily as a paid assistant) and presenting a written work, will grant
the candidate permission to present their own training providing:

1. The training will be small, 15-20 persons maximum at first.
2. The training will be at the trainer's practice and divided throughout the
year.
3. The trainer will hold his or her practice, which the trainees will be
able to watch.
4. A clinic, with low fees, will be set by the training for supervising the
trainees.
5. The trainer will teach the first 3 years of the training, 150 days, with
assistant and experienced graduates.
6. At the end of 3 years, the trainees will have to complete a quota of 30
additional days with three different trainers in order to receive
certification.
7. The main trainer will be responsible for the success of the training. The
test for efficiency of the training will be evaluated by the Guild, who will
follow graduates for a few years after completing their training and find
out to what extend they had actualized their expectations. According to this
survey, the number of participants in the next training will be given the
permission to grow. T date, no such a follow up of results has ever been
done. We are holding on to a format just with unresearched speculation.

In my opinion, this structure of a training will provide a personal dialogue
and practical feedback, which is essential in developing the skill of FI.
This structure will also be much more economical and will utilize the
resources more for the actual teaching and less for the huge expenses on
air-flights, housing and rented cars for the ever migrating trainers from
one training to the other.

I deeply believe that more educational value will come out when instead of
trainees having short encounters with many trainers they will stay with less
trainers for longer time. This is within our choice to cut the cake
horizontally or vertically.

I also believe that the contribution of a diversity of teachers will be more
meaningful and useful if it comes later, after the basis of the method has
been perceived by consistent support of the main trainer. And of course,
there are always the variety of advanced trainings afterwards.

I am aware how attached we are to our one format of trainings and what great
efforts and money the guild went to in order to protect it. But until we
explore practically other formats, we will not know what could have worked
best. I am not suggesting that we cancel the existing format, but out of my
long experience teaching in and after trainings, I would like to encourage
our community to give an opportunity to another pattern and research it so
that life can determine what works better.

I am interested to hear the feedback of the community and may be the next
meeting of the IFF will be the place to discuss this suggestion sincerely
and democratically.

With care,

Ruthy Alon