The teaching and training of the Alexander Technique was institutionalised soon after the founder’s death by a particular group of his students (see The First Training Course in 1931: a different perspective), who went on to form STAT. Some of their students later began to teach and train teachers in other countries, leading to new national societies being formed and eventually to what we now know as the Affiliated Societies.

These Affiliated Societies have continued to follow (more or less) agreed common standards of training, based on STAT’s model, trying to maintain “the purity of the teaching” – as they saw it. Within these societies there has been a great deal of in-fighting about so-called “styles”.

Meanwhile over the last 60 years, whilst we have been stuck in our approach to mind-body work, with our outdated vocabulary and rigid training structures, the world has moved on. New disciplines have arisen and ancient teachings have been brought to the West. Now Feldenkrais, Pilates, various somatic practices and the myriad eastern teachings such as Yoga, Tai Chi, Qigong and Mindfulness – a repackaged version of Buddhist meditation – complete with their own philosophies – have successfully established themselves in the marketplace, primarily by being accessible.

Disciplines that don’t adapt and develop are at risk of fossilising. Look at what happened to psychoanalysis.

“…psychoanalytic institutions, by and large, have not been set up to adapt and change. On the contrary, they are largely closed systems, focused inwardly on maintaining standards, conveying established theories and practices, and thus duplicating themselves. In a period of expansion, they are able to become more exclusive. The hierarchy that ensures control has an easier time recruiting enthusiastic acolytes, maintaining conformity, and guaranteeing its own power.”[i]

As a consequence of the rigidity of the hierarchy, psychoanalysis has largely been replaced by psychotherapy which was more accessible to those who wished to train. Was this a good thing? I’m not qualified to judge. But it is a reality that should be an indicator to us of what can happen when you don’t adapt.

And how are we adapting to the realities of a rapidly changing world? In short, we aren’t! As more and more AT schools close and less people are training – just as significantly from a narrower demographic – the Affiliated Societies seem incapable of addressing critical issues related to the training and qualification of teachers. Have they become too rigid?

Then some details of what the discussion is about.

The case for more flexibility in training timetables is that it would attract a wider demographic of people who are currently unable or unwilling to train under our current rules. This in turn would help develop interest in Alexander’s ideas, as these people from the wider demographic begin to teach others from the same professions, background or special interest groups as themselves (as is currently the case, for example, with musicians).

The case against is that the need for regular and consistent work, with a minimum and maximum number of hours over at least four days a week, is essential, otherwise the student will not be able to assimilate the work, the teaching will not be embodied and the standard of teaching will consequently deteriorate.

Other models, such as the one adopted by the Feldenkrais Training Accreditation Boards [ii], have not been considered. Why not? Do we know for a fact that such approaches would not work? No we don’t because they have never been tried – not anyway within the Affiliated Societies.

I find both points of view have merit, though there is no real evidence for either. For sure it is incumbent on our generation, as the custodians of Alexander’s legacy, to do our best to ensure that we maintain a high standard of training; it is also our responsibility to not regulate ourselves out of existence through an inability to adapt to the socio-economic realities of the 21st century, particularly if that inability is based on prejudice and idées reçues about training which have never been put to the test.

Is it really the case that there is only one means-whereby we can achieve the end of satisfactorily training teachers? It has been argued that anything other than the known pattern of training might produce sub-standard teachers. What is meant by “sub-standard”?  We don’t actually have a standard. It would be more accurate to argue that a different pattern of training might result in someone developing in a different way than others who have completed a course with a more familiar pattern of attendance. Our aim anyway should be to encourage an ongoing willingness and capacity to go on learning rather to produce a “finished product”.

I would like to put forward an approach to assessment and qualification which, in my view, addresses many of the concerns of both camps. I am sure that other more imaginative and creative responses could also be found if we are willing to think outside the box.

The approach I am suggesting would need us, as members of the Affiliated Societies, to put more trust in our Heads of Training, our Moderators, our Training Course Committees and our Councils; basically, in ourselves – in the various roles which many of us undertake or have undertaken within the Societies as professional bodies with shared aims and aspirations.

So I propose consideration of the following (drawing on STAT’s regulations):

Remove altogether from the Rules:

“Each training week shall consist of no less than 12 hours of classes and no more than 20 hours of classes over at least four days with each day to consist of no less than three hours of classes and no more than four hours of classes.”

Instead, give Heads of Training, or prospective Heads of Training, the flexibility to propose any schedule that suits the circumstances of their proposed course. However, the applicant would need to convince the Training Course Committee that their proposed schedule was viable (and clearly what is viable in one set of circumstances may not be viable in another). All the variables cannot be seen in advance and there is no need for a complicated set of rules about days, hours or breaks in order to try and predict them. Let our appointed committees make decisions based on their experience, common sense and a willingness to not unreasonably withhold consent.

This would address the needs of the “pro-change” camp.

Then how to address the needs of the “we must protect our standards” camp?

If we are to ensure that a satisfactory training has been achieved then there is a need for some kind of reliable assessment.

It is worth mentioning here that the current system of moderation was introduced over twenty years ago in anticipation of EU regulations which never materialised. In order to persuade the Heads of Training (affectionately referred to by the then Council of STAT as the “Training Course Barons”) to sign up to the scheme, they were allowed to nominate their own moderators. In this way the first panel was appointed. Helpful though the scheme is, it cannot really be defined as “external assessment”, and subsequent Councils have failed to address the issue.

However, there is something about the notion of a test or exam which does not sit well with our ethos – so is there another way to assess a student which, at the same time as safeguarding our professional standards, helps the student to develop their understanding and skills?

I propose that the Affiliated Societies introduce “qualifying courses” to be undertaken at the end of training. Such courses can be run periodically – at a Summer School, for example – by directors of training, moderators, existing assessors (yes we do already assess students from non-STAT courses) and other senior teachers. The hours involved in the qualifying course should be sufficient to get a clear sense of the student’s level of understanding and competence and can be subtracted from the required 1600 hours of training.

I can see a number of advantages to such an approach. There would indeed be an assessment of the student’s level of understanding and skill, but rather than in some kind of “test” or “exam” such an assessment would take place over an extended period (unlike ATI’s sponsorship scheme which is too short). Moreover, the “STAT Qualifying Course” would provide a high level of expert tuition which would expose the student to quality teaching from the different streams of our work, something which must – especially if such a course were also available as CPD to qualified teachers – be in the long-term interests of our Society. It would soon become apparent if any of the schools were not providing a satisfactory level of training. Extra time on the “STAT Qualifying Course” and/or the originating training course may be required for some students, and in some cases advice and guidance may need to be given to a particular school about the structure of their course, curriculum and/or the quality of teaching.

Obviously the above is only one of a number of possible approaches, but the principle is one which would help to develop common standards in our schools and be a first step in addressing the long-delayed issue of qualitative rather than quantitative criteria for qualification and which could allow new schedules to be developed in order to make our work accessible to more people.

We need to act soon. The horse may already have bolted. Despite widely reported trials with positive outcomes that have taken place, people are not queing up for lessons or to train. We must widen the demographic and make training more accessible, otherwise the Affiliated Societies are in danger of becoming merely a padlock on a ruin.

[i] The quote is from “The Organizational Life of Psychoanalysis : Conflicts, Dilemmas, and the Future of the Profession” by Kenneth Eisold. I’m grateful to John Heath for alerting me aspects of the history of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy.

[ii] Accredited trainings meet for 8 weeks per year for four years.

© John Hunter 2018