I have read numerous posts (including mine) about issues
with massage education and school approval.
I have a suggestion. Maybe it could work.
The concern is the quality and continuity of massage
education. This blog is going to focus
on entry level education which is the point of entry into the practice of
massage therapy. In the U.S. the point of entry is determined by state statute—licensing.
The Federation of State Massage Boards has developed a Model Practice Act MPA. https://www.fsmtb.org/ https://www.fsmtb.org/content/?id=171
There has been quite a bit of controversy about the
Federation’s agenda, but I am going to put that aside just now. Yes it is true that the Federation cannot
mandate anything. It is also logical
that burdened state government agencies will pay attention to the Model
Practice Act because it is there and easy to use. Therefore, in this Blog I am
going to respond as if the MPA is how the legislation will play out.
The MPA defines entry level practice for massage
therapy. OK- what does that mean?
The Entry Level Analysis Project-ELAP- elapmassage.org,
determined the curriculum content and hours both of which the MPA include. The hours are 625. You will have to read the curriculum
content yourself. It is logical to expect that the MBLEX ( the only state
licensing exam not since the agreement with between the Federation and the
NCB-yes I know there are a couple states that still have own exam) will reflect
the ELAP content. So if a curriculum does not cover ELAP curriculum
content, in the future students may not be prepared to pass the licensing exam.
While not perfect-I can live with the ELAP recommendations :curriculum
and hours. So in my mission possible process the profession has entry level education defined.
There is also an outcome measure for curriculum
effectiveness- Pass rate on the MBLEX. Now
be careful about getting your fascia in a twist. We all know that being able to
pass a test does not measure how well a graduate can perform a massage. Our goals as educators are:
·
Prepare the student to be able to pass the
licensing exam
·
Prepare the student for success as a massage
therapist
Program approval would evaluate these two points. The first point is easy- exam pass
rates. I suggest 70% pass rate as measurement. There will always be students that struggle with
exams regardless of education and as educators we can to work to help them get
over test taking difficulties. I do not support multiple choice exams as a
valid measurement OK. However, that is
what we have; the model is deeply ingrained in occupational licensing so it
is not a battle worth fighting right now.
The 70% pass rate does not penalize schools for the test taking issue.
Evaluating this is much harder and very subjective. Currently accreditation uses enrollment
compared to graduation rates and then job placement rates for graduates. I am not a fan of this but don’t have a
better idea either. If a person pays for
an education then they should be able to at least be average in skill levels
and at least be able to obtain an entry level job. They many not keep it or be successful
in the long run, but they should be able to at least get a job. I again suggest 70% placement rate of
graduates who declare that the intention for learning massage is to get a
paying job or be self-employed and earn money.
There may be a few individuals in
massage classes that are not vocationally focused but want to learn how to help
family members etc. A school should not be held responsible for these student’s
graduation and placement rates. However, a school should be held accountable
for the students they enroll, the ability for these students to reasonably complete
the education and get a job. This means
NOT enrolling individuals that will not be able to meet these minimal
requirements. I suggest a 70% completion
rate. This means if 10 students enroll
then 7 should finish the program and 5 of the graduates should get a job or
become self-employed.
ELAP CURRICULIUM CONTENT
625 CONTACT HOURS
70% GRADUATION RATE
70% PASS RATE ON LICENSING EXAM
70% PLACEMENT RATE FOR GRADUATES
All this points are able to be objectified. A programmatic approval process would
revolve around these points.
Actually most of this is already imbedded in current state
licensing for massage. However the MPA
wants ( taken from the Model Practice Act document)
“In addition to the recognition of the
ELAP recommendations, it is intended
that eventually all those who enter
the profession shall have received an
accredited education. Accreditation
enables State Boards to approve
massage schools through a nationally
established standard of accreditation
and would promote educational
quality and increase portability by
eliminating the need for individual
states to devise their own standards.
………………… MY COMMENTS: SO STATES WANT TO DEFER PROGRAM CONTENT AND
APPROVAL TO SOMEONE ELSE-SUPPOSED EXPERTS IN THE FIELD- THIS IS LOGICAL.
HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION—IT IS PROGRAMMATIC.
However, during a transitional
period before accreditation is
accepted as a standard of education,
as the profession evolves, it is
recommended that all educational
institutions adopt a curriculum that reflects
the ELAP recommendations
and that is acceptable to an
accrediting body recognized by the
U.S. Department of Education.”
…………………….MY COMMENTS. THIS STATEMENT IS SO
OFF. RIGHT NOW ONLY COMTA GIVES A HOOT
ABOUT PROGRAM QUALITY. ERR. MAKES ME
MAD.
What is accreditation? Accreditation -a process of formal recognition
of a school or institution attesting to the required ability and performance in
an area of education, training, or practice.
Here is COMTA’s definition: Accreditation is a voluntary
peer review process that identifies and acknowledges educational institutions
and programs for achieving and maintaining a level of quality, performance and
integrity based on educational and professional standards. - See more at: http://comta.org/accreditation/#sthash.qKSgvsdi.dpuf
This is from the Accreditation Standards
A. The programs under
consideration for COMTA accreditation have current approval(s) as required by
law and regulation in their jurisdictions, including state education agencies,
state private postsecondary regulators, or massage or esthetics licensing
boards. P.2
What does that mean? Does it mean that the school facilities
are legal? Does it mean that the facilities are safe? Don’t the zoning and
building codes do that? Maybe it means that the school is in compliance with
state regulation related to licensing of the actual school? If the state does
this then accreditation does not have too as well.
What about administration procedures? I can understand that a STATE would want to
defer this obligation to an accreditation organization. However, validating that the school is
functioning administratively does not mean that the finances must be audited,
or that school uses a specific filing process, etc. I point this out because the accreditation
process gets bogged down in this kind of stuff.
MISSION POSSIBLE
I propose that COMTA develop a curriculum approval process
that states can defer to providing an
external source of validation to determine that the school meets the recommendations
and requirements of the Model Practice Act : ELAP compliant curriculum and 625
hours. Since the MPA does not define teacher criteria it is logical for
programmatic approval to include a base line for teacher standards and ongoing
teacher development. I also suggest that
educational quality be measured by “so called student success measures” of 70%
GRADUATION RATE- 70% PASS RATE ON LICENSING EXAM - 70% PLACEMENT RATE FOR
GRADUATES- at least until a better idea can be implemented. I also suggest that if during the program approval
process any issues indicating financial instability, fraud, illegal operations
that COMTA report these concerns to the state for investigation.
I believe that the on-site visit process has become a burden
both to the school and accrediting body and a more efficient and cost effective
process can be use such as an independent neutral local individual whose job it
is to provide a virtual tour of the school and synchronize communication
between the school personal, students and accreditation personal - something
like SKYPE. It is the on-site visit
costs that really increase the fee structure.
I also suggest that sustaining fees for yearly reporting are
paid on a per enrolled student basis.
This would help small schools budget for the process.
I also suggest that ALL massage education is programmatically
approved. If a school wants
institutional accreditation for financial aid or other reasons, then the
massage education should still be programmatically approved. Right now, only COMTA can do this. Other organizations
may become able but not right now.
To sum up:
·
ALL massage educational programs would be
program approved using the criteria I described.
·
This approval process would need to reflect MPA
content.
·
The process would be cost effective and my
educated guess is that $3000 should be enough.
·
The initial approval would be based on this flat
rate that does not mandate a costly on-site visit.
·
Ongoing yearly monitoring would use a sliding
scale based on enrollment. I suggest no more than $100 per student.
·
A school does not have to be institutionally
accredited.
·
However, all institutionally accredited schools
must also have massage program approval.
·
A school does not have to meet any financial bench
marks, or standardized administration policies. However indications of illegal,
unethical and fraudulent activity identified by the programmatic approval body
(COMTA) will report to the state massage board for investigation.
·
I suggest a 7 years phase in period to allow
sufficient time for schools to adapt and implement to programmatic approval.