Martial Arts in Public Schools?

[Furinkazan]

There was a public post on facebook that asked the question on whether or not martial arts should be part of the curriculum in public schools.  I'm very anti-groupthink, but I don't dissent for it's own sake.  I'm a free thinker.

Just about everyone in the comments agreed that it should be.  The consensus is that "everyone should know how to defend themselves."

I thought that this was a horrible reason.  Why?  Because if two opposing people have the same advantage, then neither of them do.  That puts everything back at square one, and the advantage goes right back to the bully.  Basically,

if a > b, then a(x) > b(x)

the scenario you want is a < b(x), or at minimum, a = b(x)

But you ruin that if you require everyone to train in martial arts.

Of course, the responses I get are things like "that's not how it works," etc.  Basically, disagreements with my reasoning, but with no attempt at an opposing argument.

What are your takes on this?

Edited Thursday at 01:40 PM by Furinkazan

[Zaine]

In the event where x=martial arts, then sure, I understand what your argument is. However, there are a lot of variables here that might need to be considered. Karate, for example, often favors the defender in its core techniques. We're also assuming the bully is as dedicated as the victim to practicing their martial arts. However, size and strength are a factor in situations where there is equal training. The more valuable training here will be the situational awareness that the potential victim has. Martial arts, especially when taught to children, aren't solely about the techniques themselves. Training also imparts discipline, self-confidence, higher awareness, and in many cases, a cooling of the more aggressive tendencies. I doubt that a public school teacher is going to take the time to delve into the bunkai of every kata that they teach and given our understanding of assault statistics against children, it will be far more useful to focus on training the students on how to escape an adult than other children. When I teach a kids class, my lessons often involve the assumption that, should they need to employ their training, it will be against an adult (in which case the focus is on distraction, striking specific targets if necessary, and escape). You're seeing martial arts training as a means to an end for fighting, but when teaching children, that is almost never the goal.

As an aside, you bemoan the lack of others giving you no opposing argument but you have not met them with an opposing argument in kind based on your description. You have simply pointed out how their reasoning is, in your opinion, faulty. Do you think that it would be good to teach martial arts in school? Why or why not?

[Furinkazan]

46 minutes ago, Zaine said:

In the event where x=martial arts, then sure, I understand what your argument is. However, there are a lot of variables here that might need to be considered. Karate, for example, often favors the defender in its core techniques.

If you're not free-sparring, sure.  If you are free-sparring, you're trained on the techniques to get around the defenses.

46 minutes ago, Zaine said:

We're also assuming the bully is as dedicated as the victim to practicing their martial arts.

True, but I think this particular factor is best left unconsidered.  The reason I say that is because moral alignment has nothing to do with dedication to martial arts training.  You're going to have the same percentage of go-getters and slackers among the good kids as you will the bad kids, so it evens out.

46 minutes ago, Zaine said:

However, size and strength are a factor in situations where there is equal training. The more valuable training here will be the situational awareness that the potential victim has. Martial arts, especially when taught to children, aren't solely about the techniques themselves. Training also imparts discipline, self-confidence, higher awareness, and in many cases, a cooling of the more aggressive tendencies. I doubt that a public school teacher is going to take the time to delve into the bunkai of every kata that they teach and given our understanding of assault statistics against children, it will be far more useful to focus on training the students on how to escape an adult than other children. When I teach a kids class, my lessons often involve the assumption that, should they need to employ their training, it will be against an adult (in which case the focus is on distraction, striking specific targets if necessary, and escape).

These things can be taught outside of martial arts and even more effectively so, because then those things would be the sole focus.

46 minutes ago, Zaine said:

You're seeing martial arts training as a means to an end for fighting, but when teaching children, that is almost never the goal.

No, because the conversation is based on the claim that everyone needs to know how to defend themselves.  And that's the claim that my argument is based on.  If a different reason had been given as an argument as to why martial arts should be taught in public schools, it would be a totally different conversation.

46 minutes ago, Zaine said:

As an aside, you bemoan the lack of others giving you no opposing argument but you have not met them with an opposing argument in kind based on your description. You have simply pointed out how their reasoning is, in your opinion, faulty.

I'm kind of looking at what I gave as falling in both categories.  But for the sake of argument, if that's not the case, then they could have at least pointed out how they believed my reasoning is faulty.  I really hate when they do that, because it puts you on the spot while denying you the ability to defend what you said.

46 minutes ago, Zaine said:

Do you think that it would be good to teach martial arts in school? Why or why not?

It depends on the end goal.  If the end goal is self-defense, then no.

Remember, if a > b, then a(x) > b(x).  What this means is that, since everyone - both good and bad - is trained in martial arts, victims will still be as equally vulnerable to bullying as they would have been if none of them had trained.  If everyone is trained, and the victim is being bullied, then what's he gonna do?  Train in martial arts?  He's already covered that.  So what now?  And that's the scenario that I believe would be created if "everyone" is trained in martial arts.

Edited Thursday at 03:20 PM by Furinkazan

[bushido_man96]

If Martial Arts become part of a school curriculum, then it takes the instructor's discretion away on a lot of things.  For one, someone that probably doesn't know a thing about Martial Arts training is going to become an arbiter of what is or isn't taught, to what extent, etc, and things could likely get watered down.  Then there is the issue of how to approach gradings.  Insurance and liability become even bigger issues of concern.  The instructor has less ability to control who he/she is teaching; it becomes available to all, especially if it's required.  I like to think all kids can benefit from Martial Arts training, but there will be some that will take in the training for the wrong reasons.  The idea appears appealing at first glance, but I think there are a lot of things that can go wrong.  

[sensei8]

I’ve seen various MA styles being taught in a public school in after school programs that were held in the schools gym. These programs rented the schools gym but both the school and the schools administrators approved before hand. These schools allowed the CI to place stacks of flyers in the schools office or one flyer found on the school’s office bulletin board. 

The MA program, as part of the approval process, had to submit its syllabus/curriculum. However, the school and the school districts administrators HAD NO authority as to said syllabus/curriculum; they just wanted to know what was all involved. Those MA programs also had to show proof of insurance at various levels.

In short, these MA programs were NOT part of any academic curriculum of said school whatsoever.

On the other hand, I very briefly taught Karate 101 and 102 along time ago at the LAVC in the San Fernando Valley in southern California. I had to follow the college curriculum to the letter, and had to submit everything under the sun to the Department Chair of the Physical Science Department as far as grades, reports, this and that and that and this. 

From time to time, the Chair or the Assistant Chair would pop in and out a few times a semester just keeping an eye out. But they never ever tried to correct me on the manner of how I should teach said techniques. The whole time I was there, they never pulled me aside for cause. I knew my job and I knew it well. The powers that be at LAVC just wanted to make sure I followed the curriculum and that I didn’t deviate from it.

Not everyone should learn the MA like not everyone should learn how to be a doctor. And I agree…not everyone should learn to defend themselves because the MA is not a one-seminar or one semester thint, and there are so many other ways than the MA to defend themselves with.

[JazzKicker]

In my state, there is already a phys ed requirement. When I was a kid, the closest we go to martial arts was a unit on wrestling, which was probably acceptable since it is an intramural sport.

My kid goes to a private girls school right now, but I know the public schools have plenty of extracurricular athletics available over and above "PE" class, with soccer leagues etc. There's no shortage of TKD schools for kids, either.

My take is, leave it as something voluntary, outside the public sector. Then there's no parents complaining about Johnny hit Billy, we don't believe in bowing, why isn't Suzie a black belt yet, etc.