CA:

"Well, I'd say it makes perfect sense to me that you would feel supported by a paper that insists that pilates in its original form is bad for people"

Again...I re-read the paper to see where it says, "Pilates in it's original form is bad for people". I couldn't find it, but what I did find is, "the goal for each client is optimal stability and mobility." I also read, "When we consider the health and condition of each client's spine, we may choose to bias the program towards flexion or extension based upon their issues or physical dysfunctions."

I do not bias my clients work based upon MY back problems. I tailor the work to the body in front of me.

"I am also entitled to my experience, and my experience is that Pilates in its original form, when understood and taught appropriately to the body/the person in front of you, is awesome."

I believe it is awesome for you. I also believe that teaching to the person in front of you may mean making adjustments. We know, for example, that flexion is contraindicated for osteoporosis. If we were not able to modify the original spinal position of some exercises, it would be at the exclusion of a whole lot of people who really NEED the work of spinal and just general joint stabilization.

I think we just said the same thing, I guess I just don't understand how anyone can teach to the body in front of them if there is no leeway for modification.

If you are happy with the 2006 PMA PS, by all means, Tori, support the PMA! If you notice, I am not trying to convince anyone otherwise. To each his own.

If I am hearing you correctly, however, the issue that you seem to be having trouble understanding is the idea that classical pilates makes "no leeway for modification." I think that many people have the impression that this idea is true, and I maintain that it is not true.

If you have an open and inquisitive mind (and to me, it seems that you do :) and, if you would like to hear the perspectives of many who do support the classical method and all its nuance, then I wholeheartedly invite you to discussions on the Pilates Connections Discussion Board.

This is not the place for debate on the issue of the 2006 PMA PS.

We appreciate that this discussion is still active and would like to keep it going, as it's an important topic in the community, however, I'd like to remind Pilates-Pro.com Community Members of our Community Guidelines, specifically the items below.

2. Courtesy in Pilates forums: You will keep in mind that the Pilates-Pro.com Forum is an open and uncensored community which depends on the goodwill and responsible behavior of its users. Please treat Pilates-Pro.com, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect, even if there is a difference of opinion. Please do not post or transmit any comment or statement which is deliberately intended to upset other users, start inflammatory arguments or interrupt legitimate discussion. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

4. Private discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general Pilates community. If possible, continue your discussion privately elsewhere; however, do not solicit personally identifiable information—everyone has the right to remain anonymous in this online public forum.

Thanks,
Amy Leibrock, Editor

1.I have been there when the PMA was just a twinkle in Kevin's eye (...) but after a few years, it became clear that the PMA has failed the long term teachers who have already been teaching for years and kept Pilates alive.
I am sorry to see that, because I originally believed the PMA could have been a great idea.

2. I second Carol's correction of ["the idea that classical pilates makes "no leeway for modification." ] The whole of the method is Joe's modifications for particular situations, he kept making new exercises for the people who came to him, and that is how it was passed on to me by Romana and Kathy Grant. Modifications for the person IS Pilates!

"The whole of the method is Joe's modifications for particular situations, he kept making new exercises for the people who came to him, and that is how it was passed on to me by Romana and Kathy Grant. Modifications for the person IS Pilates!"
---------

Exactly my point... the PMA suggest a bias toward flexion OR extension according to the body you are working with; the ultimate goal being to achieve strong, stable, healthy bodies, through muscle balance and improvement of postural deviations. We are all working toward the same thing ...Right?

One of my instructors is a second generation teacher as well. She teaches the classical repertoire right along side other employees who teach contemporary methods (as I've noted before). Everyone gets along famously (10 of us) and everyone sees the benefit in all forms of the work. I do understand that Joe Pilates modified his work for the body in front of him, what I don't understand is why modifying a spinal position (in particular) seems to be such a big deal if it will benefit a client.

I don't feel failed by the PMA. I've been teaching for just over 14 years. Maybe not as long as some, but I feel pretty well seasoned and knowledgeable in my craft. This whole debate over the PMA seems to be over a spinal position, yet somehow I've got to believe there is more to it than that. There must be some other underlying things that I am not aware of. And for that, I will end my part in the discussion. I appreciate everyone's training, time, and viewpoints. Thank you for the opportunity to express mine.

To Amy Leibrock, apologies for the extended discussion, but I do appreciate the opportunity provided by pilates-pro.com. Now... on to participate in other forums. Thank you. :-)

Tori,
you say: "There must be some other underlying things that I am not aware of."
you are absolutely right. there are two issues in my post. The fact that the PMA has failed long term teachers has NOTHING to do with spinal position! Its not about what style of Pilates you teach.
The PMA failed us by not supporting us and by catering instead, only to the "new" teachers. While I am glad to hear you feel supported by them, you are certainly the exception.

the other issue-
"what I don't understand is why modifying a spinal position (in particular) seems to be such a big deal if it will benefit a client."
In my opinion, it has to do with the fact that many new teacher were "mass produced" and don't understand the essence and or subtleties of the work, since it has been reduced in some cases to cookie cutting. they may be repeating like parrots things they don't fully understand.

Based on the comments that I am seeing here, it seems that the problem lies with the training programs.

...and with newcomers who do not yet know what they do not know.

This is the problem NOW.

FYI: I posted the following yesterday on the AIM Academy Forum, On the Future of Pilates, Part 2 Post. Here's the link to the entire discussion, which includes links to information that may be helpful in understanding the intent of the PMA's 'Pilates Teacher Training Summit' in Dallas, TX, Nov 7-8,2009 regarding the PMA Certification Exam: http://www.forums.pilatesconnections.com/index.php?showtopic=2505.

This was one of those moments when I had to sit and contemplate a bit before writing. I ask myself: Is this something I need to speak up about. Obviously, the answer is yes. The following is simply my opinion.

From Marguerite Ogle’s 10/19/09 interview with Rachel Taylor Segel of The Pilates Center of Boulder (http://pilates.about.com/od/becomingandinstructor/a/Pilates-Instructor-Training-Segel_3.htm)(I have to say that I really enjoyed the article up until this part on the third page):

Quote
MO: Since you are so involved in the teacher training process, do you think it's important to have a national certification exam?
RS: Absolutely. Years ago when Kevin Bowen was the head of the PMA, he told us certification is legally something different than what one studio does with their trainees to get them graduated out of their program. That's not certification. You can give them a certificate but that's not certifying. One of the main reasons it was so vital to get a PMA certification happening is because of insurance. If somebody sued you they could say, "Your not [legally] certified, how did you get insurance?"
Endquote

This comment is very disturbing. A teacher does not need to have a PMA Certification in order to purchase insurance. To imply as much is really wrong.

Quote
We took the word [certification] out of all our material. Even though many of the teacher training programs still say that, and prospective trainees still come to us wanting to certify. But you cannot be certified in the United States unless you pass the PMA exam. That is true certification. It has to be a third party exam by an independent, objective organization (more than your own studio, maybe even more than your own state).
Endquote

The PMA Certification Exam is not yet accredited by the NCCA. Even if becomes accredited, it is my understanding that there are, in fact, other types of certifications besides a "third party exam" that could be considered by the government. And, there are other forms of professional regulation that could be considered as well.

Quote
RS: Amy and I have been involved with the PMA from the beginning. We've been involved in writing the exam. Sure the exam is a disappointment, but it is a certifying exam.
Endquote

Please tell me where the wisdom is in the above statement…

Quote
When our trainees graduate - and it's very rigorous to go through our program with many hours of examination spread through the program - they get a diploma. We are registered with the State. It was a big process that took a lot of time, and continues to be so. But it was the legal thing to do. So when our trainees graduate from us, they graduate from a recognized government agency. All of them have passed the PMA exam, to my knowledge, the first time.
Endquote

…especially coming from a co-founder/co-director of a very prestigious school who went to the trouble of becoming registered with the state.

The issue I have here (and it’s the reason I began blogging) is that the entire story is not being told and that parts of the story are not even true. I wonder if teachers do their homework regarding such issues or if they follow the "leaders" blindy. I wonder why comments like these are continually stated and no one says anything. I did not leave the PMA after over eight years of membership because of the exam, per se. I left mostly because of the statements in the 2006 PS, because I did not feel professionally supported, and because of how I observed the PMA to be operating. I would count allowing people to believe a comment like Rachel’s above as just one case in point.

If individuals desire to be a part of the PMA, it is their choice, and, I want to be clear that I have absolutely no judgment on that personal choice.

To me, there is, however, an incredible diversity in the “pilates world” and membership in the PMA is only a part of that greater community. This fact will need to be recognized, if the time should ever come for the PMA's Cert Exam to be considered “the” exam that a state might decide upon as its licensure exam for pilates teachers.

This weekend marks an important time in the Process of Professionalizing Pilates and so I wrote a blog about it:
http://aasicontributions.blogspot.com/2009/11/process-of-professionalizing-pilates.html

On the agenda this weekend at the PMA Dallas Summit is discussion of one approach to professionalization, the PMA's approach, which is its proposed third-party accreditation, the PMA Certification Exam. I am happy to see that so many Pilates Teacher Training organizations will be in attendance. Hopefully they will gain insight to the information they seek on the PMA's plan of action.

I hope that this post has been helpful in providing info to all in the greater pilates community, especially those who will not be attending the Summit.