Back in the day when I was training in London during the 70s, group teaching was considered a cheaper, lower grade version of learning Alexander's discovery. Some people still think this way. This wisdom is premised on the idea that giving pupils’ an experience is king: what you are teaching is a sensation.

I agree - when your primary means of education is first to deliver an exceptional experience, then prolonged physical contact with a pupil is pretty much essential. This in turn leads to a world of “hands on” and intensive one on one teaching.

But what if don’t want to do that? (Or – even – what if this is economically unsustainable?)

What if you want to educate your students to do it on their own?

Again, back in the 70s, the answer to that last question was…

“Impossible. People must first have an experience.”

However, some teachers refused to accept that as an answer.

“Impossible? Why is it impossible? Alexander did that, didn’t he?”

In the 1970s in London, it was teachers like Don Burton and his Directors Sue and the eccentric Isobel at ATA in Old Street who began exploring this question: can this work be effectively communicated in groups?

No-one disputes the fact that a new student will benefit enormously from gaining a new experience in the use of themselves. The real question is not: “Can we do without the experience?” but rather: “How much experience do they really need?”

Alexander was totally over the top about this.

Lessons with FM were, like, EVERY DAY for 2 weeks. Then one every second or third day after that – a minimum of 30 lessons or forget it. You weren’t getting FM as your teacher.

Lessons with FM were expensive, intensive and basically beyond the reach of all but the rich and famous. This may have been more about Alexander’s business model than it was ever about the best way to learn his work.

Alexander was no fool when it came to making money.

Certainly by the 70s, almost no teachers copied his model. By then, teachers had figured out that the message could be communicated via a less intensive model. The number of 30 lessons was still brandied about, but “20 lessons” was gaining more favour!

Paul Little’s experiment published in the British Medical Journal in 2008 demonstrated that just 24 lessons spread over a longer time brought about an 86% reduction in chronic long term back pain…

Conclusion: less intensive experiences work just as well.

But how less intensive? When does minimizing a pupil’s experience compromise an ethical breach of your service contract?

Answer: when it stops being of help to the students.

How about this?

Instead of you deciding what is good or not, why not let your student be the judge of that?

After all, they are the ones paying the money. If what you offer isn’t working guess what? They vote with their feet. They stop coming. I say – put aside the argument that “groups won’t teach Alexander's discovery effectively” and instead ask the question:

“What value can I offer my students in a group teaching environment?”

Of course, that leads to the next question: how can I make a group learning environment effective for my students?

I’ll write again exploring what an effective group lesson looks like. If you like this, clicking here lets you enroll in a free online seminar that I am organizing with Peter Jacobson that will cover the ideas you need to follow to build a successful practise.

A hint for that is already given: let your students decide what they want!

Look out for my next blog on: What does group teaching look like?

(Sign up below to make sure you get my next blog by email)