Does "AMTA" stand for "Arrogant Massage Therapy Association?"

Comment

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on April 21, 2011 at 10:01am

I'm also going to weight in here because I passionately value transparency and equally passionately dislike efforts to be dismissive of stake holders within the profession.

I'm with Emmanuel that the memo from AMTA-IL was an attempt to make ABMP seem less than credible. ABMP is definitely a stakeholder in the profession. It has a large number of members - members who could and would vote with their feet if they felt that ABMP did not listen to their concerns and represent their interests.

A massage board should not engage in advocacy. It is a government agency whose responsibility is to protect the public from harms of dangerous incompetency and crimes of malfeasance as set forth in the statements of law creating it. It the law has inherent conflicts, inconsistencies, or ambiguities, then a massage board should inform the legislature and the profession of the same. Unfortunately, and far too often, the roles of regulation and of advocacy are confused.

 

I don't necessarily agree with Rick Rosen that a law should not be changed during a sunset reauthorization. I do, however, strongly agree with him of the seriousness of the situation. If one is to change a law, then it should be with the foreknowledge (i.e. with transparency) and with the consensus of all major stakeholders. If things are not done this way, then it is to be expected that a intra-profession disagreement will be played out in full view of the legislature. You hash out differences within the profession  or you hash them out in public.As Rick stated well, to take the latter course is to risk the credibility of the profession in the face of the the legislature and to risk the entire reauthorization. Lack of transparency and trying to move with lack of consensus is extremely self-destructive. Trust is extremely easy to lose and, once lost, very very difficult to regain.

In the larger picture, sticking to an agenda that helps the FSMTB to create portability between states is, I believe, the priority. We do not, in general, have well defined outcomes of training (i.e. guarantees of what tasks a graduate will be able to do and in what contexts) for 500 hours, let alone more. Les Sweeney made a statement at the recent ABMP schools meeting (which I learned of via a Tweet from Jan Schwartz) and with which I entirely concur: "More is not better. Better is better". In other words, you work on content and conversion of training into practice before adding on.

Comment by Emmanuel Bistas on April 21, 2011 at 5:17am

Thank you all who posted here, I would also like to echo Rick's recommendation for the MLB to remove the amendment and table it for further discussion.

 

I received several private emails from people who said, as Angela suggested, "why don't you become more active in AMTA-IL and bring change from inside rather than posting such a confrontational blog?" 

 

The answer is simple, that it is all about core beliefs.  For example, I strongly believe that there is a distinct difference between licensure, which has a goal of public protection, and the development of our profession which, hopefully, far exceeds the minimum requirement for public protection.   Professional development can be accomplished in many different ways from within the profession.  AMTA's actions show a core belief that uses state licensure as means of advancing the profession.  I disagree with that point of view.  AMTA's actions also show a core belief that they speak for all therapists in Illinois.  I disagree with that too (only 1/3 of IL licencees are AMTA members). 

 

It is difficult to change people minds when the core beliefs are different.  That is why, at times, discussions on a public forum, whether it is Tahrir Square or massageprofessionals.com, become necessary.

 

Once again, I would very respectfully ask the MLB to reconsider Amendment 02 and table it for further discussion.  

Comment by Rick Rosen on April 20, 2011 at 7:57pm

To My Esteemed Colleagues:

This blog post, started by Emmanuel Bistas, has generated a significant amount of interesting discussion. The one point that matters most -- and that seems to have gotten lost in the sea of words -- is that the purpose of Senate Bill 153 is to authorize continuation of the Illinois Massage Licensing Act.

You might ask: What does that mean? Illinois is among those states with sunset provisions in their licensing laws. That means each law is only good for "X" number of years. When the time is up, the Legislature must pass another bill to keep that regulatory process and licensing board in existence.

Bottom line here: if Senate Bill 153 does not pass in this session, massage licensure in Illinois will be sunset. End of discussion. Party's over.

Given what's at stake, it is highly questionable to be using a "continuation" bill like this to try and make substantive and potentially controversial changes to Illinois Massage Licensing Act. We can see the chaos that has been created here. Legislators take an extremely dim view of intra-family squabbles (like what's happening between AMTA and ABMP right now). The dissent within our own field on this bill could jeopardize it's chance of passage.

The best thing to do here is for the Illinois Massage Licensing Board to request the immediate removal of the amendment that would increase minimum hours of education to qualify for a license, and for all interested parties to support the passage of Senate Bill 153. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Remember that without state licensure, regulation will revert back to the local level. Nobody wants to see things go back to an unpredictable mess of ordinances that stigmatizes the practice of massage therapy.

AMTA's stated intention to "advance the profession" is a noble cause, but this bill is not the place to be tinkering with the standards in the Land of Lincoln. That should be part of a broader industry discussion left for another day.

Comment by Angela Palmier on April 20, 2011 at 7:26pm

Hi Emmanuel,  Thanks for the clarification.  I've responded below.

• "Please remember that my post was not about the hours, but about the tone of the “urgent call-to-action” email that was sent out by AMTA.  I felt that the letter was arrogant and I still stand by that statement.  Every one of my colleagues who read it felt the same way."  You've got me here.  I suppose that because I know the individuals involved and know how they speak, write, etc., that I was not seeing...or should I say reading tone.  And I do agree that anytime you read the words "urgent-call-to action" without understanding the background or knowing the conversations, etc., it has to feel as if you're being asked to do something that you're not clear on.  Many would simply reply as being told without questioning, yet people like us aren't likely to do so.  This is a good lesson for the chapter and I'm glad that you posted it here.  I can tell you from my experiences as a chapter leader that you get so immersed in the details of what is going on and literally start to live and breathe it that you forget there are many others who are not privy to that level of info you are and it's hard to balance all of those variables, particularly as a volunteer.  Good point here--and I fully understand this one, thanks.
• "The email did not give the reader access to the licensing board deliberations or understanding of how this came about.  Even if a reader went online to research the topic, she would find nothing related to Amendment 2 on the agenda of the 2/28/11 MLB meeting, and no minutes from that meeting." You're right here as well....as for the email giving the reader access to the MLB deliberations, I'm not sure that that would be possible.  Unless things have changed, the chapter receives the official board minutes the same time that the public has access to them, which you've pointed out are not posted.  This is something that makes me absolutely nuts.  I haven't looked at the MLB site for a while, but they typically run anywhere from 6-8 months behind and there is no excuse for that.  I think that is one of the reasons why the chapter wanted language in there that would require for the information to be made public as indicated by the open meetings act.  That being said, from the outsider's perspective, and I'm certainly one of those, it feels as though you're given a choice of acting based on faith, not acting at all, or rejecting the chapter's position...none of which are very comfortable places to be.
• "If the reader sought reference in the AMTA position statement they would find one bullet item regarding the 750 hours in a two page document."  I don't have a real clear answer on this one, and no way of knowing, but again, given the players involved, I feel that perhaps this particular issue was not a big concern and/or not the focus of the chapter's intent.  Again, not speaking from any place of real knowledge about "how" the decision was made, but as other parts have such a higher emphasis placed on them, it makes me think that the chapter was not as strong on this issue as the others.
• "So, AMTA members were asked to call their senators based on the following rationale: a) a brief reference to a “trend” for more hours (which we know to be false), and b) an emotional appeal to “respect the mindful deliberation of the licensing board...”  followed by the writings about the differences between AMTA and ABMP."  Here is where we start to disagree.  a) Currently there are 14 states with education hours higher than Illinois and there are three more that have passed through the comment phase and will soon become effective making 17 states of the licensed states in this country with higher hour requirements----nearly half.  In speaking with representatives in 4 other states, I understand that they are working on language, etc., that would increase their hours as well.  b)  There are two board members (Cherie Monterastelli and Pat Benjamin) who are highly respected within the AMTA chapter--Pat being a past president and Cherie as a long-time member of the AMTA-COS Board.  Both of these women are of very independent minds and while they may have ties to AMTA neither of them could ever be categorized as mouthpieces.  Both are more than willing, and have historically demonstrated that when they agree with a position taken by AMTA national-or the chapter they agree-and when they don't they disagree loudly.  I'm not 100% certain as to the affiliations of the other board members, but the current chair of the IL-MLB, Rita Sax is a long-time supporter of ABMP and in my opinion has single-handedly rallied the MLB to consider and finally include MBLEX as an exam alternative in Illinois which was no small feat--in large part due to the state staff which has historically preferred to a one-exam format.  As the bill language was unanimously approved, I have to believe that knowing these key individuals and witnessing their process that all sides were considered and deliberated.  Perhaps given their positions with the chapter, they were not able to make such specific statements about the MLB, but since I'm no longer bound by the "rules" I can :)
• "If writings about not-for-profits... with a distinguished history in Illinois in the same paragraph with for-profit.. from Colorado… who until now have not participated in the legislative process or any other issues in this state and finished with It is ABMP staff that has inserted their voice into the governance of Illinois practitioners is not intended to create a certain emotional impression upon the reader, what purpose does it serve in the “urgent call to action” letter? It has nothing to do with the justification behind Amendment 2." I'm certainly in agreement that AMTA-IL has had a distinguished history in Illinois.  There are so many issues the Chapter has faced over the past 11 years that I was involved and in large part have been extraordinarily successful.  We've not had the drama related to legislative issues as many other states have had, so some unintentional missteps could be due to the fact that the chapter has done such a good job with GR that there isn't enough experience in this situation.  I can't speak entirely to the level of involvement that and/or support that ABMP has given in this particular situation, but I can speak to my experiences when we were dealing with SB318/HB64 which gave chiros the right to delegate massage to licensed or unlicensed people.  I was in communication with their GR Director Jean Robinson and had asked for their assistance to help us fight this bill.  In that instance, there was a clear threat to the individual therapist and schools.  It's not lost on me that while they sent an eblast to members, they never attended any of the meetings held at the capital and they certainly didn't hire a lobbying firm.  The chapter....and our government relations group which at that time included the very same players with the exception of Mike Hovi-although he was a board member.  We really needed their muscle-I could have certainly used an additional lobbying firm along with our lobbyist to fight this, and yet nothing of the sort was offered.  I suppose ABMP could counter that I didn't specifically ask for those things, but I learned about this bill on second reading less than 48 hours after becoming President.  Perhaps the sting of that experience and the lack of support back then is still fresh in their minds...I've not heard any of those players say as much, but as I'm typing this, I must admit my face is getting red.  

"I agree that licensees should not shut up.  "Respect" does not equal "do not question". They should be respectful of deliberations while at the same time moving their feet and researching.  For that to happen, transparency has to exist.  But how?"  I could not agree more.  Respect does not equal "do not question."  It does bring up a question for me though...(irony at it's finest)...before you posted "Arrogant Massage Therapy Association" did you question them directly?  I can certainly understand how they would respond in a defensive posture if they were not given the opportunity to explain the situation rather than be forced to respond "officially" to a post such as this one.  Perhaps you did speak directly to Tracy or Mike, or even to a member of the licensing board asking for an explanation---and if you have and you were not given an answer that was transparent, forthcoming, etc., then I can understand your response.  If you haven't.....I'm not sure that you'll get the response you're looking for.  You and I have one thing in common.  We can respectfully disagree with each other, and we can certainly have productive dialogue that when we understand each other we can say so.  It's one of the things I like most about you---you're challenging and when I was a board member/President of the chapter, you certainly kept me on my toes.  But our relationship didn't start out that way-it took time and I believe we've developed a mutual trust and respect for each other based on our ability to communicate.  I do hope you feel the same way.

• No agenda item on the MLB website
  • You can't really fault the chapter for this one.  I don't think Jesus, Mohammed, Allah, God or Moses can make the government agencies more responsive regarding their reporting.  The IL-MLB, to my knowledge doesn't have any control over this either. :)
• No minutes on the MLB website (no minutes since june 2010, as a matter of fact)
  • See previous response
• Only a single bullet item on the AMTA position statement with no further explanation
  • I still have a feeling that the chapter was not as adamant on this point, but again I could be wrong.  I think the fear and the response that you're reading in the communications has more to do with the fact that a threat to this bill could potentially result in Illinois MT's not being licensed any longer.  Since the increase in hours would not affect current MT's and wouldn't take effect until 2016, I would imagine that the chapter is more concerned about the fact that the sunset on our licensing act expires December 2012.  In calendar days this seems like a long way off, but in a legislative calendar it's a blink of an eye.  Legislators see this situation as a profession divided and regardless of who is "right or wrong" the argument itself is VERY detrimental to the profession as a whole. 
• As we are finding out, AMTA and ABMP agreed on the general language for the bill first, but MLB added Amendment 2 with support from AMTA without consulting with ABMP
  • I'm not sure about this.  I've read it in posts that are supportive of ABMP's position, however I, like you, are very hesitant to just simply accept words as fact.  It would be strange if everyone was on the same page and as Les stated in this thread, they were working together all along, for the chapter to simply add something as significant as a 50% increase in hours.  Which now makes me wonder why ABMP would go to such an extreme position of hiring the particular firm they hired because they were excluded from this one particular part of the legislation.  And if it is their position that the 500hr requirement is all that is needed, why single out Illinois?  Why didn't they hire the firm to represent them in Iowa?  The comment period just ended last week which means that they could have hired that firm to stop that state's increase in hours...particularly since it is a border state of Illinois it would be logical.  I think there's more to this story that is being told.  
• When ABMP opposed Amendment 2, the facebook post on AMTA’s page was “SB153 could be in peril” with continued references to the bill as "sunset bill" and no references to Amendment 2.
  • I think this supports my unsubstantiated theory that the chapter was more interested in protecting and bolstering the licensing act itself as opposed to hours.  You could make the assumption that only one side was presented here and the amendment was "glossed over" which is a strategic political move to make....but if you (by you, I mean the general person, not you specifically) make that assumption, then you have to look at the other side of the coin and while I'm not interested in pointing out every specific area in this post, I can see where the position of ABMP is not inclusive of everything either.  It's politics at it's finest...and it's happening in Illinois the "Disneyworld of politics" --sorry, I'm tired and I couldn't resist.
• Finally, the emotional plea to support the local association
  • Okay-this is where I'm really going to get on your hind-end.  Do you have any idea how incredibly valuable you would be to this chapter-and to the profession not only in Illinois, but across this country?  You're one of the most analytical people I know and you approach nearly every topic that I've ever engaged you in with candor, respect for the people and....well, you're sort of like the "unofficial watchdog" for the therapists in Illinois.  Your insight and questions could really help.  It's less time-consuming to be an arm-chair quarterback...but we all need people like you and many others out there to get in the game!  Making decisions that represent over 3600 people and potentially over 9000 individuals without a day, evening or weekend off is a tremendous responsibility and it's been done by volunteers in this state for over 60 years. We all have demands on our time, but imagine if you were sitting at the board table, or on the GR committee as this process was unfolding.  If there was an error in communication, or position, or process you could have been there to suggest alternatives, take on some of the load, etc.  If there were 10 of you serving on the committee, Tracy would have had an army of people to share the load and perhaps this situation wouldn't have developed as it has.  I know Tracy and have worked with her for years.  I recruited her to come back and run for the board because I know that she is a passionate volunteer when it comes to GR and as the new first vice president, she's likely to become the next chapter president.  While she and I may not see eye to eye on every issue (she's much taller than I am) I know that aside from Sally Hacking, I've yet to see a person as passionate about GR than Tracy. 
  • Finally....I miss this conversations Emmanuel.  I think we need to work together :)  

 

Comment by Mike Hinkle on April 20, 2011 at 6:01pm

Angela, everything you presented leaned towards explaining there needs to be more hours and you said you were for a tiered system. I have argued that I am against these things and I have expressed it across many discussions. Most feel more hours are not needed for entry level. Those wishing to enter the CAM aspects have many avenues to do so and other therapists should not have to meet their desires.

 

This push is being driven by a small portion of therapists and IT is fracturing. I read your responses and they changed nothing. I don't disagree that CAM and the massage therapists that choose this avenue face many challenges. That does NOT mean ALL massage therapists should have to face these challenges because of the few that choose to.

 

Call yourself CAM Massage Therapists or CAM Therapists. We are Licensed Massage Therapists and we want it to stay that way. A tier system will strip someone of their title and that I resist. Canada did this foolishness and I do not want it here.

Comment by Emmanuel Bistas on April 20, 2011 at 5:51pm

Hi Angela,

 

Thank you for taking the time to address this.  

 

1.      After reading and re-reading the information provided by the AMTA-IL Chapter, I'm not seeing anything that appears to be "bashing ABMP."  Rather, I see that they are informing their members that ABMP has opposed amendment 2 of the bill.  The high profile law firm based in Chicago is one of the most expensive law firms and by hiring such a firm, it infers that ABMP has taken a very serious position against increasing the minimum number of hours in Illinois.  Can you point out where you see that AMTA-IL is actually bashing ABMP, or are you simply in disagreement with the chapter supporting the IL-MLB recommendation of increasing hours?

 

Please remember that my post was not about the hours, but about the tone of the “urgent call-to-action” email that was sent out by AMTA.  I felt that the letter was arrogant and I still stand by that statement.  Every one of my colleagues who read it felt the same way.

 

2.      You've highlighted two sections:  One referring to the chapter supporting the MLB (are you stating that the chapter should not?) and one regarding AMTA-IL structure that includes info re: the ABMP's participation in the process.  I'd like to break this paragraph in two...  2a) The Chapter's support of the MLB in my opinion is important for many reasons.  It's also important to note that the unanimous decision to raise the minimum education standards in Illinois was made up of a board that is comprised of AMTA members as well as ABMP customers.  I wonder if the MLB members who are affiliated with ABMP consulted with and/or were contacted by ABMP prior to the hiring of a lobbyist?  Do you know if this happened?

 

With the email blast, AMTA members were called to action based on the rationale presented in the email.  

The email did not give the reader access to the licensing board deliberations or understanding of how this came about.  Even if a reader went online to research the topic, she would find nothing related to Amendment 2 on the agenda of the 2/28/11 MLB meeting, and no minutes from that meeting.

If the reader sought reference in the AMTA position statement they would find one bullet item regarding the 750 hours in a two page document.

So, AMTA members were asked to call their senators based on the following rationale: a) a brief reference to a “trend” for more hours (which we know to be false), and b) an emotional appeal to “respect the mindful deliberation of the licensing board...”  followed by the writings about the differences between AMTA and ABMP.

If writings about not-for-profits... with a distinguished history in Illinois in the same paragraph with for-profit.. from Colorado… who until now have not participated in the legislative process or any other issues in this state and finished with It is ABMP staff that has inserted their voice into the governance of Illinois practitioners is not intended to create a certain emotional impression upon the reader, what purpose does it serve in the “urgent call to action” letter? It has nothing to do with the justification behind Amendment 2.

 

3.      You say "Basically, Illinois licensees have to shut up and just go with what AMTA and the licensing board say, and ABMP, although it is the largest association in the country, should not be involved because they are from Colorado?"  Here are my thoughts....of course Illinois licensees do not have to shut up, nor should they.  They should choose whether or not they are impacted by this legislation---and in fact, EVERY one of them are as SB153 is the sunset bill.  I do want to offer the fact that ABMP is not an association, but rather an organization-which is structurally different than a professional membership association.  Theoretically, professional membership associations are beholden to their membership whereas for-profit organizations are not---at least in the same way.  That being said, I have no issue whatsoever with a company being for-profit but what I think would be helpful is to consider that while decisions made by AMTA-IL are made by the membership, decisions made by ABMP do not have to go through that process.

 

I agree that licensees should not shut up.  "Respect" does not equal "do not question". They should be respectful of deliberations while at the same time moving their feet and researching.  For that to happen, transparency has to exist.  But how?

• No agenda item on the MLB website
• No minutes on the MLB website (no minutes since june 2010, as a matter of fact)
• Only a single bullet item on the AMTA position statement with no further explanation
• As we are finding out, AMTA and ABMP agreed on the general language for the bill first, but MLB added Amendment 2 with support from AMTA without consulting with ABMP
• When ABMP opposed Amendment 2, the facebook post on AMTA’s page was “SB153 could be in peril” with continued references to the bill as "sunset bill" and no references to Amendment 2.
• Finally, the emotional plea to support the local association

From a transparency standpoint, this sounds a lot like when Utah AMTA went behind ABMP's back to include “recreational massage” on their licensing bill.  There is no openness, so how can one even respect the process?

As far as who makes the decisions in member-based not-for-profits vs. for-profit associations, I think that overtime, organizations develop a culture.  The older and larger the organization, the more rigid the culture. New members fit in, leave, or are molded into the culture.  Depending on the size of an organization, change can be slow.  Can members bring change? They would need to be exposed to a different thinking and this is what these conversations are about. 

Sometimes, the culture of organizations is based on paradigms which may be outdated.  They are like the myths that we make fun of in massage therapy.  A relevant myth is that more hours (all other things being equal) is better.. or that accreditation (all other things being equal) is better... or that a not-for-profit association listens to its members better than a for-profit one... There are many myths.

Change happens the moment the AMTA volunteer who gave up the weekend with his kids to help with an event truly realizes that the Director of his non-for-profit makes close to 300,000 per year on his back. 

 

It is no coincidence that AMTA went from being the larger organization to being a smaller one.  Even with the support of the corporate schools which produce a vast number of graduates, AMTA is still number 2.. Why? I think that a look at the underlying myths will help answer that.  What some of the organization's beliefs, and are they based on facts?

 

4.      True, ABMP is located in Colorado, and no-I do not believe that excludes them in any way to offer their opinion.  What I am interested to know is that while you feel slighted because you feel that AMTA-IL or IL-MLB did not ask or include you in the decision making process to increase the minimum education hours, do you feel equally as slighted that ABMP did not ask or include you in their decision making process to oppose it?

 

There is a difference between not being consulted for a change that has tremendous impact on the market dynamics vs. not being consulted for a non-change.  

 

This is what I see from where I stand: when NCBTMB was taking 3-4 months to process applications and AMTA kept turning a deaf ear to complaints of school owners, school owners turned to ABMP.  The result, as you know, was the seed capital for FSMTB and the MBLEx (which, by the way, were initially rejected by AMTA).    When school owners talked about the need for professional development and academic success, ABMP developed a success curriculum which distributed to school members free of charge.  When the topic of teaching quality came up, a book was published on “Teaching massage”.  There is a long list, which I am not going into here.

 

I am confident that if ABMP were to support a 50% increase in minimum education in Illinois, it would be more than a bullet item on a position statement. 

Comment by Angela Palmier on April 20, 2011 at 3:48pm

Okay Mike-you win.  I give up.  If you're comfortable with stating what most therapists want, then it's your right to say it.  You've yet to respond to my initial questions, which I asked in hopes to more fully understand your position.  Note I said to understand and at no time did I say that I agreed with or disagreed with the position taken by the AMTA-IL Chapter and/or the IL-MLB.  You've made that assumption and in turn denied me the opportunity to have a better understanding of where you are coming from.  I used to participate in this group when I felt I had something to contribute or if I had a question about something and wanted a deeper understanding or another perspective.  I had hoped that given the importance of this conversation I would be able to do the same again.  Perhaps you are operating under the assumption that I am engaging in this conversation as a representative of the Chapter, which is false.  I have not been on the AMTA-IL board since August 1, 2009.  Like yourself, I am an AMTA member and as such it signifies that in large part I agree with and support the organization.  That doesn't mean that I support and/or agree with each and every decision.  In fact, there have been a few times in the not so distant past that I contemplated ending my membership.

 There are many areas when I agree with Les, Rick and Mike as well.  There are some areas that are still unclear to me and I posed questions  so that I could understand where they were coming from, and perhaps learn something,  and some where I can respect their opinion, yet disagree. I tried to do that with you as well.  If you're able to see that and would like to continue the conversation, that's great.  If not, that's fine as well.

Comment by Gordon J. Wallis on April 20, 2011 at 3:44pm

Yea when National Certification first started I was all for it... I thought Great!!!   One test and we can work anywhere..Sounds smart...One standard, and if you wanna advance your education...You are free too...Plus a minimum of continuing educational credits to maintain your license.. But all it did was add another exam to whatever State Exam you have to take...And now they want to add more?  All its doing is improving memorization skills, not massage skills.  What should happen, like many are saying in here...Is set a basic standard, set minimum continuing educational requirements and thats it.   I mean we are Massage Therapists.  If you wanna be a Physical Therapist go to College, get your degree..Gawd you can get a PHD. in it if you want.  Everyone is trying to change Massage Therapy into Physical Therapy or Osteopathy.  Come on? Its just ridicules. They already have those career fields if you wanna get into them.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on April 20, 2011 at 3:21pm

Rather than going into it all again. I will state facts not in print.

Most therapists want 500 hours to be the norm. I think six years of polling across the states at least proves that fact to me. Those wishing to furthewr themselves have the opportunity to do so in the existing parameters. Further pushing hours in states as AMTA is doing is "fracturing" all efforts to have reciprocity between states. Is AMTA against state to state licensure, because they keep pushinmg the envelope. As Gordon says below, Rick Rosen has said it. Michael McGillicuddy has said it. Stop increasing the hours and get a set standard in schools. You can site articles that say more hours are and that is fine. They can be accomplished in continuing education classes. Schools can always individually raise hours as they see needed.

I want to see continuing education providers and schools doing continuing education make more money. We do not want to front load the courses and hurt enrollment in schools because the entry fees or cirriculum is too much. Schools doing this just cause they are going to get more grant money for 750 hours are some of the problems.

 

I agree with Lew Sweeney and the ABMP approach towards this issue. And that's what really proves my point. I am an AMTA member and I do not agree with the AMTA stance on this issue. Many in Illinois do not either. No polls are being taken, small groups are deciding and the members are not being informed. Those that disagree with this need to speak out.

Comment by Gordon J. Wallis on April 20, 2011 at 2:41pm

http://www.massageprofessionals.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2887274%3...

Increasing hours will simply increase the level of incompetence and further shorten the career span of a massage therapist. Its more the obvious if people stop thinking and just look.  Increasing hours will just increase intellectual dumbness. Indeed it has already.   We are massage therapists...They need to start teaching massage.  I mean damn..If you want more hours..Go to medical school, then after you graduate, be a Massage Therapist.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page