Should there be a regulated Certification?

[waya]

I see alot of us talking about how competent or qualified instructors are. Do you think there should be a regulated certification required to teach?

Rob

[LilBunnyRabbit]

In CKD we already have one, to qualify you have to be eighteen, a black belt or higher, and have trained as an assistant instructor for at least two years. The only person I know of who didn't meet the age requirement was a friend of mine, who was the youngest instructor in Choi, and one of the youngest second dans, now going for his third in June.

[Freeform]

In theory its a great idea, but very difficult to enforce in practice. You would firstly need a governing body for each style (ha!) and then and overall national/international body (haha!!!).
What about the guys who hate MA politics, there are some really good instructors? The ones who speak their minds and no group will affiliate with them?

This also brings up the point of insurance.

Thanx

[waya]

Mostly I think it would be a decent idea, but not to be regulated by governing bodies within the arts. Maybe something regulated by the state, much the same as any teacher in a school must certify under. Something hard to make work, but it would be worth it in the end.

Rob

[pesilat]

I think in theory it's a great idea. The problem is making it work.

First ... how is the government going to regulate something like this? They don't know what constitutes good martial arts. Who would set up the criteria?

The only logical answer is: martial artists.

Then we come to the issue mentioned by Freeform. A lot of good martial artists that I know wouldn't be involved in something like this because they hate politics. They just want to train, teach, and have fun.

In fact, IMHO, the first people who would jump on the bandwagon to lay down regulations would be McDojos ... and the regulations they lay down would likely be ones that would make it difficult for any real martial artists to function.

Then we come to the question of ... how can, for instance, a TKD guy write regs that relate to Muy Thai? How can a MT guy write regs that relate to Silat? How can a Silat guy write regs that relate to Karate?

There could be some very general guidelines laid down ... but, eventually, human nature (of the regulators) would prevail and it would be used as a method of controlling the martial arts that people have access to ... not a method of maintaining quality in *all* MA.

At least, that's my opinion.

Mike

[alienladd]

Huuuuhhh Boy, Waya
Maybe something regulated by the state
leave the State out of this!!!! You may as well ask the State to regulate the Artworld to decide who is a good painter, writer, singer and generally a good entertainer.

Pray tell me, by what criteria will they determine this? :)

The only practical means of accreditation is the school you study with, your chief instructor and your immediate instructer/s with whom you train.

The value of your training of course is dependant on the criteria set by your chief instructor and with whom he/she trained.

A school of value will have some sort of loose curriculum which you must follow to reach certain levels. These, when attained can be rewarded with, and of course I need not tell you already are, different belts and or certificates. But that in itself is not sufficient in my view.

Depending on the style a person could build up credits by competing and the more he/she wins the higher that persons rating and recognition will go.
Another extremely important factor should be the temperament of that person. If the student has an aggressive leaning it should be duly noted and that person should have credits deducted, if not dismissed.
Can you imagine an uncontrolled person with a deadly fighting technique? :woo:

If someone wants to join a MA school they should perhaps first be able to check the chief instructor out to see if he/she has sufficient credits in the MA world which will ensure that the training will be of a very high standard.

So perhaps if highly accredited chief instructors from the different MA styles got together and were to 'supervise' different national and international competitions or seminars you may get some sort of accreditation for a competitor which will be duly noted and publicly certified. Given enough of these you would gradually build up the reputation you require to be a good instructor.

Am I making any sense here? :D

[pesilat]

Originally posted by alienladd
So perhaps if highly accredited chief instructors from the different MA styles got together and were to 'supervise' different national and international competitions or seminars you may get some sort of accreditation for a competitor which will be duly noted and publicly certified. Given enough of these you would gradually build up the reputation you require to be a good instructor.

Am I making any sense here? :D [/B]

LOL ... makes sense ... but have you ever seen a room full of martial artists from the same system (much less a bunch of different systems) agree on anything?

;-p

Mike

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Depending on the style a person could build up credits by competing and the more he/she wins the higher that persons rating and recognition will go.
Another extremely important factor should be the temperament of that person. If the student has an aggressive leaning it should be duly noted and that person should have credits deducted, if not dismissed.
Can you imagine an uncontrolled person with a deadly fighting technique?

If someone wants to join a MA school they should perhaps first be able to check the chief instructor out to see if he/she has sufficient credits in the MA world which will ensure that the training will be of a very high standard.


Just because they're a good competitor that automatically makes them a good teacher? What about those amazing teachers who see no point in competing because they feel that it is unnecessary, or they're already confident in their art and ability? What about those who compete, and win, but are arrogant, undisciplined and violent? Sorry, can't accept that idea at all.

[waya]

OK ok, what I was thinking had nothing to do with material, more along the lines of being taught to teach if that makes any sense. Someone can be an excellent artist, and still have no idea how to impart that knowledge on to others. That is what I would like to see corrected.

Rob

[pesilat]

Originally posted by ckdstudent


Just because they're a good competitor that automatically makes them a good teacher? What about those amazing teachers who see no point in competing because they feel that it is unnecessary, or they're already confident in their art and ability? What about those who compete, and win, but are arrogant, undisciplined and violent? Sorry, can't accept that idea at all.

Amen ckd!

I have competed ... but I have no urge to compete anymore. If my students wish to compete I'll help them any way I can. I might even compete if I get a wild hair. But that shouldn't in any way be a criteria for my recognition.

I want to be recognized for my ability to teach ... not for my ability in a ring ... and, as you said, ckd, the two are in absolutely no way related (unless I'm focusing on teaching people to compete ... which isn't my goal).

To take a bit of a tangent here ... I firmly believe that, if one is training with reality in mind, then competing is, at some point, a good idea in one's development. But, for me, it's not a goal. It's just one (relatively small) part of the overall development.

Anyway ... there is no across-the-board criteria that will work. Martial arts is too personal an endeavor ... *and* it's personal for each student, school, instructor, system, art ... it's "personal" at each level (even though some of those levels aren't "people" ... it's still applicable).

Mike

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I'd like to compete, but I can see myself getting disqualified regularly.

[pesilat]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
I'd like to compete, but I can see myself getting disqualified regularly.

LOL ... yeah, I can relate to that :-)

Mike

[alienladd]

ckdstudent
What about those who compete, and win, but are arrogant, undisciplined and violent?

As I said ..If the student has an aggressive leaning it should be duly noted and that person should have credits deducted, if not dismissed

To safeguard the schools good reputation I think a responsible instructor would not allow a consistently aggressive person to remain in that school.

Also.... your Fighting Art is only as good as it enables you to subdue your opponent .... anything else would amount to a "dance" :D

Of course knowing the art does not necessarily make you a good imparter of that knowledge and anyone intending to teach could learn to do so at his/her school as an assistant instructor under the guidence of the chief instructor.

My feeling however is such ... to be good in the MA's you have to have a pretty good 'Understanding ' of the techniques in your particular disciplines.

When you 'understand' something as opposed to learning the 'rituals' of the moves then I think you have a pretty good chance of imparting that knowledge successfully.
I speak from personal experience.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

But competition doesn't necessarily entail understanding or even teaching ability. Teaching ability is something very specific, it can be learned but competition does not automatically impart it. There are plenty of classes where the instructor tries to teach by demonstrating a technique and saying 'this works, do it like this' but cannot break it down or explain the technique, merely use it.

An analogy: you can use a computer, but can you explain to thirty people how to use it, what the individual parts do, and how they go together?

If your an engineer then replace computer with painting or something similar.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by waya
I see alot of us talking about how competent or qualified instructors are. Do you think there should be a regulated certification required to teach?

Rob

Depends on what you want to regulate and who you want to regulate it.

For the most part you can not regulate what someone teaches. You might be able to regulate other things though.

Things like training in:
- First Aid, CPR.
- Sports Psychology
- teaching methods
- Learning patterns
- Safety
- Lesson planning (How to, not what to)
- Leadership skills

But it would be impossible to regulate the quality of what is taught, an attempt to regulate the quality of how it is taught might be made, but I don't think it is neccessary.

I think its best that the gov't stays out of it, just too much potential to do so much harm.

[Andy Murray]

An analogy: you can use a computer, but can you explain to thirty people how to use it, what the individual parts do, and how they go together?

If you have never competed, can you explain to other people why they should also abstain?

What about those amazing teachers who see no point in competing because they feel that it is unnecessary, or they're already confident in their art and ability?

They have every right to do so. I also know some excellent teachers, who believe in testing themselves in every available format. competition being just one of those.

Someone can be an excellent artist, and still have no idea how to impart that knowledge on to others. That is what I would like to see corrected.

The crux of the matter? If an instructor is poor at communicating his/her art, won't their school just fade away? Natural selection and all that.

My personal feeling is that Certification can never be policed properly. Where it is enforced, it provides a shield for inferior Instructors to hide behind, and an enhanced vehicle for financial gain.

Yup, I voted no!

AndyM:D

[alienladd]

Hmmmm, ckdstudent, if I may say so, my own feeling about such an instructor (your quote below) ...
There are plenty of classes where the instructor tries to teach by demonstrating a technique and saying 'this works, do it like this' but cannot break it down or explain the technique, merely use it
.... is that that instructor does NOT understand his/her techniques and will surely lose against a competitor who has learnt the same techniques but has also analyzed them to get an understanding of the moves.
What is more, 'Understanding' is not an instantaneous quality but comes with application of the taught techniques under varying circumstances.

I am not so sure about your 'computer' analogy as I have found most people who work with computers DON'T understand them but can only use the limited software they have been taught.

But your painting analogy might work for me ... :)
You can sit yourself in the countryside with an easel, paintpad and et al and maybe paint a tree.

So you see a picture and transfer it on your pad.
But to make it realistic you first draw an outline, you check your proportions like trunk to crown and maybe a rock next to the tree.
Then you fill in basic shadowlines, then you start with details. And to get the right colours you must understand how to mix to get just the right hue. (Ever noticed how many different greens there are?) and your understanding of all of these processes enables you to paint an exceptional and realistic tree.

The same principles apply to anything in life.

If your instructor says that this technique works without being able to break it down then he has probably been taught by someone with a similiar lack of understanding or he has simply not had time to work through his newly aquired knowledge.

Any thoughts on that? :)

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Yep.

If he's learnt simply by mimicking his instructors moves then he can still be good, but because he doesn't understand what he's doing he can't teach. Like a painter showing a student a finished painting and saying 'it should look like this'.

Andy:

Why would I want to explain to students that competition is unnecessary? Why would anyone? Just because the instructor doesn't compete doesn't mean they'll forbid their students to, whether or not to compete is very much a personal decision.

My point was purely with regards to the credits for competition concept, and not a general case.

[pesilat]

Originally posted by ckdstudent
Yep.

If he's learnt simply by mimicking his instructors moves then he can still be good, but because he doesn't understand what he's doing he can't teach. Like a painter showing a student a finished painting and saying 'it should look like this'.


And there are also people who go past mimickry and do understand the material ... they just aren't very good at communicating it to others. I've known several people like this over the years.

Sometimes it's due to a language barrier between the teacher and student. Sometimes it's just that the person is lacking in good communication skills in general.

Mike

[Andy Murray]

Hi CKD.

I just wondered if you were a bit down on competitive arts cos you said;

What about those who compete, and win, but are arrogant, undisciplined and violent?

Like in 'Karate Kid' you mean?

Hmmm. New thread!

Mr Miyagi vs Sporting Sensei.

I would like you to clarify;

Why would I want to explain to students that competition is unnecessary?

Unneccesary for what?

Sorry Waya, I know I'm drifting of topic slightly.

Andy:confused:

[YODA]

As I see it there are only two areas where martial arts need regulation...

1. Safety
2. Accountability

Things like martial effectiveness and adherence to style/ art are largely a case of "buyer beware". As long as an instructor does no harm, and is accountable in law if he does then I don't see how further regulation will achieve much.

There will always be places that cater for...

Those that want to learn to fight.
Those that want to think they are learning to fight but don't want to take the inherent risks in doing so effectively.
Those that want to compete & win trophies and maybe pick up a few tips on real fighting along the way.
Those that want to avoid learning to fight at all costs but want to become pseudo-oriental mystics.

----- and many combinations of the above.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Where do you draw the line between safety and controlling an art though? A lot of traditional techniques involving locking out an arm in a punching motion cause damage to joints, should that be banned, or is that the practitioner's choice?

[Darzeka]

When learning something like a lock that can and will cause alot of damage the instructor should explain what will happen before letting the students find out for themselves through someone getting a broken elbow then saying "Oh yeah, don't put it on too hard" after the fact.

This could be something that could be certified - making sure the instructor knows the mechanics of what is going in what is being taught. This would especially apply to locks.
Maybe having the instructors learn the physics of the body before teaching things of this nature would be beneficial (and a pain in the ass. I know dancing teachers have to do it before they are allowed to teach - my sister is going for her teachers exam sometime soon).

It also comes back to the student though. Even though the instructor may know all this and have explained it in detail, the student may not understand it (my younger brother is a prime example).
The instructor has to be able to recognise this and try to find a way of explaining it to him/her (I wish my brother could figure out why his arm bars won't work on me properly or listen to me when I explain it. I am not an instructor yet but I do understand the lock, some physiology of the body and the physics locks in general.) so that injury does not occur due to frustration (ever had someone try to slowly apply a lock, get frustrated then yank, twist and stretch most of the tendons in your elbow? It hurts lots, thank god my brother understands the armpit lock).

Well flame me if you will but I'm bored and like to ramble and if I cofused you this was my point - have the instructors know what is happening with the technique (mainly for locks) so that they can explain why it hurts and why you should not twist a wrist lock that way if it isn't hurting your training partner.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

I was actually referring to straightening your arm or leg completely when throwing a punch rather than things like arm locks.