Can't We All Just Get Along?

The wind of change is howling through the Pilates community. The force is so great, it has shaken me out of my blog hibernation. (In my defense, I did recently give birth to my second son and have been juggling various events concerning my two and a half year old.)

In 2001, the Pilates Method Alliance was formed as a professional organization for the Pilates Community. It was heralded by a coalition of elders, notable Pilates personalities and equipment manufacturers who had hoped to create a forum for education and a singular voice in the world of mind-body fitness. It's ten years later and it seems that the very community that the PMA hoped to promote is raising some serious questions about the group's validity.

A few months ago, Performing Arts Physical Therapy / The Pilates Studio of Los Angeles publicly withdrew its membership from the PMA when it published a scathing criticism of the Pilates Method Alliance online. In its manifesto, the PAPT calls the PMA "irrelevant", accuses it of trying to "monopolize" Pilates and declares that the "P" in PMA is not "Authentic Pilates." The main source of PAPT's condemnation is the controversial certification process. Specifically, the PMA claims its certification is the only legitimate industry wide certification and is currently asking Pilates schools to refrain from referring to their graduates as "certified instructors." Needless to say, the PAPT is not the only party that feels the way it does. It just so happens that they are the only ones that actually published their tirade.

As someone who has been both an enthusiast and an instructor for at least seven years, I have heard the industry murmurings of displeasure with the PMA. I served as a volunteer at the PMA conference for the first time in 2006 while I was still completing my Classical training. I witnessed first hand the Alliance's lack of organization, but I chalked it up to growing pains. I heard the whispers of dissatisfied members who questioned the PMA's agenda as well as their financial structure.

After completing my training in early 2007, I spent time refining my teaching skills, building my client roster as well as my family. I removed myself from the politics of the industry and concentrated on my craft. In 2010, I decided to return to my post at the PMA conference as a volunteer. To their credit, the PMA seemed to have improved their organizational skills. The volunteers had set agendas and, despite some hiccups, I felt that it ran pretty smoothly. In the negative side, however, the whispers that I had heard at the previous gathering were now roars.

The PMA promptly published a rebuttal to the PAPT's scathing statement. In a well written, point by point deconstruction of the PAPT's emotionally raw and error wrought treatise, the PMA basically used the PAPT's statement as an opportunity to clarify its position on certification. The PMA basically said that they are merely trying to set an industry standard known as "certification" and that they are not in the business of creating a universal school. They use the analogy of a person getting a degree from a college (aka Pilates training academy), then moving on to get their license from a professional board (ie. State Board of Examiners.) In their equation, they simply represent the professional board.

The release of the PAPT's statement and the PMA's rebuttal coincided with the PMA sponsored "Educators Summit" in early May. The free event was a forum for educators to discuss the future of the PMA and the role educators would play in it. From what I heard from an attendee, there were approximately 60 people there. Not one of which was a member from the PAPT.

While the PMA did their due diligence by inviting the entire world Pilates community, the underwhelming turnout did nothing to bolster the industry's confidence in them and, from what I hear, it just brought up more unanswered questions. There are quite a few hot button issues that the PMA should immediately address including their finances (as a non-profit their financial statements should be publicly available) and how presenters are chosen for the conference. Last I checked, these areas have not been addressed on their website or their Facebook page, nor was there any kind of executive summary as to what went on during the summit.

As this dialogue unfolds in front of me and the rest of the Pilates community, I am doing my best to navigate through both the Pro- and Anti-PMA waters. On the one hand, I see the need for a professional organization to help keep the legacy of Pilates alive as well as represent the profession in governmental issues. For example, states are threatening mandatory licensing for fitness personnel so it is important that Pilates is represented as its own discipline. Additionally, the "Pilates Day" and "Pilates in Our Schools" programs have helped bring an awareness of the Method to the general population.

On the down side, the PMA has cleverly crafted a system where fees are collected at every turn. Beyond the standard membership and conference fees, there are additional questionable tolls. There is a fee to take the certification test - almost 300.00. Where does that money go? Sure they use a third party test company, but 300.00? It's only 47.00 to take the SAT. There's a study guide for the PMA test that runs around 50.00 with shipping and handling. That book is not published by the third party test company nor a random publishing company, it is put out by the PMA. Where does that money go? Once you become certified, you are expected to do a set number of continuing education credits as in any other profession. The PMA provides a list of approved CEC's; however, if you wish to take a workshop that is not on the list you have to submit a petition to have that class recognized as a legitimate CEC. Who decides? The PMA. The fee? 25.00. To use the college analogy that they used during their PAPT rebuttal, it's like petitioning for an independent study credit to count toward your major. In that analogy, however, that petition is included in the price of tuition. There are no additional fees.

Another cause for dissension is the controversial "Registry of Schools". This is a list of schools that have met a certain set of standards determined by attending Pilates educators at the 2009 PMA Summit. While the criteria is substantial, so is the fee. It is 500.00 per school per year to be included in the registry (and an additional 200.00 per location.) If the PMA is trying to promote diversity and accessibility among Pilates educators, why is the fee so exorbitant? Does verifying the paperwork, changing the PMA website and doing an initial phone/personal inquiry really cost 500.00? Or, at the very least, after the initial legwork is completed, is it necessary to pay 500.00 simply to renew annually?

Returning to the business of the CEC's, there are fees not only in the potential petitioning student's end but also in the hosting school's as well. In order for a person or institution to qualify as a CEC provider they must submit an application for approval. The fee? 150.00. The way it is divided on the website, this is separate from being on the Registry of Schools. Now, it's possible to be a CEC provider without being on the Registry; however, being on the Registry of Schools will help bring in students for the CEC workshop.

Whatever the argument is on either side, one this is clear - this polarization of the Pilates world is probably not what Joe had envisioned back when he was conducting workouts at Jacob's Ladder. The infighting and politics may stifle the craft just as Pilates is starting to attain mainstream appeal. It is important that we take time to consider all that is happening and take a breath before we act or react. Otherwise Joe will be rolling over in his grave rather than, as I'd like to imagine, rolling like a ball.

Sound off. Where do you weigh in?