massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Senator Flores Says Practice Massage Before Licensure In FL
How do you feel? Florida's SB584
Insurance coverage for students will cover them? Who is going to check and see if they tested?
$50 or less and you are in.. http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileN...
Views: 175
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Lisa on
-
I didn't read the whole thing but from a glance I don't see what the problem is. it's a TEMPORARY license with requirements to meet in order to obtain. You still have to be a graduate of an accredited school. I think it makes sense.
If I recall correctly, in CT they had "sponsors" that enabled an MT fresh out of school, to work under an establishment while they began the process of state/national testing. It was a great idea. It allowed those that don't have a ton of money and whom have already forked out a ton of money for schooling, to start working right away.
If you don't have money, how are you suppose to test? This gives people a way of working and making money TO take the tests.
-
Permalink Reply by Darcy Neibaur on
-
I do believe as a client Mikey worked on me once at the center. I also worked on many folks after swedish was completed. We were both given opportunities that most students do not received. I feel being mentored is the answer. For me it gave me experience that I otherwise would not have received. I do not think I would have felt confident otherwise out there massaging the general public. Also, a thought came to me about paying back student loans which has to begin 6 months after graduation. Hummmm I wonder if that has anything to do with his senate bill. Just my thought!
-
Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Bistas on
-
I wonder who is behind this. I see a couple issues:
1. It favors 'accredited' programs vs, non-accredited ones. There are some pretty crappy accredited programs (as there are non-accredited ones too), how can you use accreditation for issuing someone a temporary license?
2. How is that going to be monitored/enforced? States don't have the resources to pursue enforcement now, how will it be with hundreds or thousands of 'temporary' mts? I am sure there will be many working with temporary licenses until caught - ooops, has it been six months already?
3. People can take licensing exams while they are in a massage program and many programs include the fee in the tuition. Why does anyone wait 6 months before taking the exam? it's not like years ago when the NCE had a 3 month backlog for processing apps. I can see having a provisional license where someone who meets all the criteria (finished program, passed exam) can work while their license is pending, but even that can be in case someone's background does not allow them to be licensed.
I don't get the reasoning behind this bill at all.
-
-
Hi Emmanuel. I wanted to address some of your issues:
1. If we can't rely on accredited schools being of higher quality schooling than non-accredited, then we are in for some real issues way beyond this particular one. To me what's the sense of having either categories if being accredited doesn't stand for something and is upheld to higher standards?
2. I would choose to want to believe in our fellow graduating MTs at the start than already assume there are going to be ones that try to work under the radar. There will always be those type of people in any profession...we can't create legislation out of fear.
3. I don't know about other areas, but I do know that 4 years ago when I graduated school I was financially drained to do anything more. It took me a year before I was able to take an exam to get licensing and certification. My school didn't include these exams in their program so it was an additional fee that I just didn't have. and I wasn't the only one. Do we know how that applies to FL's massage schools? I don't, but I certainly know what it was like to not be able to afford to pursue my career.
I still am not seeing what the big deal is in the bill.
Emmanuel Bistas said:
I wonder who is behind this. I see a couple issues:
1. It favors 'accredited' programs vs, non-accredited ones. There are some pretty crappy accredited programs (as there are non-accredited ones too), how can you use accreditation for issuing someone a temporary license?
2. How is that going to be monitored/enforced? States don't have the resources to pursue enforcement now, how will it be with hundreds or thousands of 'temporary' mts? I am sure there will be many working with temporary licenses until caught - ooops, has it been six months already?
3. People can take licensing exams while they are in a massage program and many programs include the fee in the tuition. Why does anyone wait 6 months before taking the exam? it's not like years ago when the NCE had a 3 month backlog for processing apps. I can see having a provisional license where someone who meets all the criteria (finished program, passed exam) can work while their license is pending, but even that can be in case someone's background does not allow them to be licensed.
I don't get the reasoning behind this bill at all.
-
-
Lisa,
The facts are not there to support the notion that accredited schools are better than non-accredited ones. No matter what indicators you look at - exam pass rates, employment rates, gainful employment rates- accreditation does not necessarily mean better. I understand that is the intention of accreditation, but that's not the reality. I think the topic has been covered in other threads.
As far as trusting graduating MTs - I trust that everyone has good intentions. But, imagine this: A person graduates from massage school and starts working under this law. During month 5 of their employment, they take the exam and fail it. Nobody knows about, and it is up to that person to tell their employer. the problem is, when they tell the emplpoyer they lose their job; if they don't say anything they keep working. Hmm.. what will they do? Why entice people to do the wrong thing? It's like putting an obstacle before a blind person and waiting for them to trip.
As far as the financial goes, I know $175 can be a lot of money to a lot of people. I just don't see how, if a person can get financial aid and loans for 15K of tuition and more for living expenses, how $175 is out of reach. Naturally there are exceptions to everything. I just don't see the sense in changing the rules because of exceptions. I don't want to sound insensitive to your financial difficulty when you were taking this exam, it's just I think there are many options available to students these days.
The reason this bill is important is that it goes against what we have come to accept as good things for massage therapy. If we have agreed as a profession that regulation is a good thing, opening the door for unlicensed individuals to work under "supervision" (which is not defined what it means) cannot be a good thing.
-
-
except the legislation still has the newbie MT working under a LICENSED MT. Do you not trust the licensed MT?
This was the same in CT at the time I graduated and it afforded a lot of MTs just graduating the ability to work while preparing for their test. The person sponsoring had to be in the office but not in the room. The graduating MT couldn't work on anyone if the sponsor wasn't there. And there was definite accountability to them taking AND passing the test. So it wasn't as if the wool could be pulled over anyone's eyes. As a matter of fact, I believe one of my fellow graduates was sponsored under Massage Envy.
Even doctors has internships (or whatever it's called) before they are full fledged doctors. I don't see the problem at all.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
