Credibility of instruction

[Wa-No-Michi]

Should we all agree to make it a "Given" that the person who is the instructor does possess the knowledge?

Ahh,but isn't this the point, how do you qualify this.

Yes, there are good teachers and bad out there, and to extent I buy into the "you can teach or you can't" way of thinking, but I don't think it stops there.

Good teaching is down to good communication and classroom management, thats a given. True in depth technical knowledge is something else. imo.

This is perhaps why we have a lot of very enthusiastic ma clubs around the uk who are taught by "effervescent" teachers who nurture very keen students, but at the end of the day "technically" they are rubbish.

Understanding of technique/purpose is king. The rest is down to how you get it across.

[Traymond]

before you can teach you have to know what you can teach. You cant teach algebra by only knowing addition and subtraction.

If you want to teach how to fight, you better have alot of fights behind you.

If you want to teach self defense, you better be able to defend yourself.

If you want to teach martial arts, you dont need a black belt. You dont need a certification, It looks better, but legally you dont need a certification...if your accepting money you need a business license.

But I teach for free so i dont need a license, I have a few shodans and a nidan, and a yondon in my own style, for me thats good enough to teach, ive been doing it for thirteen years the only thing that I think is questionable is the amount of time I have been doing martial arts, and thats about it. But my experience is their, for thirteen years I trained daily, except on sunday. For atleast 3 hours a day.

[sensei8]

Agreed, but what is there to stop someone who is a "naturally" good teacher from teaching things the wrong way (or teaching the wrong things (seemingly) very well)?

Nothing! It's up to us, those who know better, to interceed on the behalf of the unknowing, so that someone can decide for themselves as to what is best for them. You can lead a horse to water, but, it's up to the horse if he/she wants any water to drink.

Teaching ability has to be combined with correct technical knowledge and the latter perhaps is where the licensing/certification thing comes in.

Agreed though, when it comes to teaching, a dan grade is a belt like any other and does not necessarily bear any relevance to teaching ability.

Solid! Absolutely solid!

Wa-No-Michi and joesteph both have solid points in their seperate arguements. I see both sides of the fence, and in that, I see green grass on both sides.

[Wa-No-Michi]

But I teach for free so i dont need a license, I have a few shodans and a nidan, and a yondon in my own style, for me thats good enough to teach, ive been doing it for thirteen years the only thing that I think is questionable is the amount of time I have been doing martial arts, and thats about it. But my experience is their, for thirteen years I trained daily, except on sunday. For atleast 3 hours a day.

Hhmm, you have your own style, this makes things a little clearer!

Also; not taking money for your teaching may absolve you from certain "legal" obligations, but I would argue that it would be wrong to hide behind this, if only from a point of view of teaching things the best way.

You have duty of care toward your students to teach them the best way possible and I would question whether 13 years (even at three hours a day) qualifies you to do this?

[Traymond]

Exactly, I agree. I dont think 13 years is enough either. It actually started with me and my sensei teaching a totally diffferant style when i was in school, as an after school club. to promotoe drug and violence awareness, well. My instructor moved away, and I took over, the school system told me to. So I teach brasshand in the school system, and at my house. All my students must be over 18, and they do have to sign consent forms with me and the school. I also had a no liability clause when im teaching with the school, and at my house we do it on state property, right next to my house which would shield me from being penalized if I were to hurt someone, but I would have to pay a fine. Brasshand, is a mixture of all of the styles that I have a shodan and up in, and the ones im qualified to teach certain things in.

And yes 13 yrs is extremely short to be able to teach martial arts you totally have me on the same page with you on that one.

But I will argue that I did not just step up and out of the blue decide that im going to teach.

My goal is to unify martial arts, into one, so that people dont have top space them into Karate, tae Kwon do, Kung fu, they can refer to it as martial arts. It will not be done in my lifetime, but I pass on my teachings to my students so they can continue my work, thats why I teach it now, so I can unify them.

My students, know that it is my own style, and it was their choice to do so. I told them that I am not one of the best teachers around, and I have even recommended some other instructors. But they stick with me.

But I dont have to worry about to much of the legal part. We barely do any contact, light sparring some Jisan, and ALOT if Ippon Kumite, 5 hours of Kata a week (We have 15 katas just before shodan), but we also do alot of the spiritual and meditative arts of martial arts, such as Kiai Jutsu, We study zen koans over and over till, some of the meanings appear, then we re study them also.

But I hope to grow with my students as they grow in my art.

[joesteph]

Should we all agree to make it a "Given" that the person who is the instructor does possess the knowledge?

Ahh,but isn't this the point, how do you qualify this.

You may have misunderstood me, Michi. The rest of the paragraph reads:

If we keep re-stating, qualifying that the person has to have the knowledge, we're simply reinventing the wheel. As a classroom teacher myself, it's a no-brainer that if I don't know the material, I can't teach it.

One of the two points I was making in my posting is that we keep presenting, as I see it, that the individual has to have knowledge of the martial art from, say, kata/hyungs to techniques to its history to whatever. Let's use it as a given, rather than keep repeating it.

The second of the points was that what we need to consider is the ability to instruct, to teach others what s/he knows. That's why I compared the MA instructor with the college professors. They don't have dan memberships, but they do have doctorates. An individual can be brilliant, but can that individual teach/instruct others?

[Wa-No-Michi]

Should we all agree to make it a "Given" that the person who is the instructor does possess the knowledge?

Ahh,but isn't this the point, how do you qualify this.

You may have misunderstood me, Michi. The rest of the paragraph reads:

If we keep re-stating, qualifying that the person has to have the knowledge, we're simply reinventing the wheel. As a classroom teacher myself, it's a no-brainer that if I don't know the material, I can't teach it.

One of the two points I was making in my posting is that we keep presenting, as I see it, that the individual has to have knowledge of the martial art from, say, kata/hyungs to techniques to its history to whatever. Let's use it as a given, rather than keep repeating it.

The second of the points was that what we need to consider is the ability to instruct, to teach others what s/he knows. That's why I compared the MA instructor with the college professors. They don't have dan memberships, but they do have doctorates. An individual can be brilliant, but can that individual teach/instruct others?

Sorry Joe matey, I did not mean to misquote you, but it's all about knowing the material isn't it? My point is perhaps, that it should be, but in fact it isn't in most cases and it would be wrong to assume that it was a given?

[Wa-No-Michi]

Should we all agree to make it a "Given" that the person who is the instructor does possess the knowledge?

Ahh,but isn't this the point, how do you qualify this.

You may have misunderstood me, Michi. The rest of the paragraph reads:

If we keep re-stating, qualifying that the person has to have the knowledge, we're simply reinventing the wheel. As a classroom teacher myself, it's a no-brainer that if I don't know the material, I can't teach it.

One of the two points I was making in my posting is that we keep presenting, as I see it, that the individual has to have knowledge of the martial art from, say, kata/hyungs to techniques to its history to whatever. Let's use it as a given, rather than keep repeating it.

The second of the points was that what we need to consider is the ability to instruct, to teach others what s/he knows. That's why I compared the MA instructor with the college professors. They don't have dan memberships, but they do have doctorates. An individual can be brilliant, but can that individual teach/instruct others?

Sorry Joe matey, I did not mean to misquote you, but it's all about knowing the material isn't it? My point is perhaps, that it should be, but in fact it isn't in most cases and it would be wrong to assume that it was a given?

Correction, in order to avoid the risk of being "hoist upon my own batard" I should have rightly said that "in my experience" it would be wrong to assume that it was a given.

Sorry

[joesteph]

Correction, in order to avoid the risk of being "hoist upon my own batard" I should have rightly said that "in my experience" it would be wrong to assume that it was a given.

Sorry

No problem, Michi.

[tallgeese]

My opinion, you need 1) a sutiable base of knowledge on the subject 2) the ability to pass it on to others.

One does not necissarly lead to the other.

One can argure about the standards of your knowledge base, but I submit that if you are good at what you are teaching, and you are acutally honest about what you're teaching then your probibly going to be alright. Certifications and such can be useful but MAY not be mandintory.

The abilty to pass it on can easily be measure by the success of ones students and how well they pick things up.

If you've got both of these covered then there should be no problem "instructing". Now, if your passing out rank in a given system, you'd best have the approval of that systems governing body. Or at the very least your instructors approval of such actions.