Martial Arts in Public Schools?

[Furinkazan]

1 hour ago, DarthPenguin said:

There are a few other points here that I think may be relevant:

• often kids aren't really aware of the consequences of violence and the harm it could cause to others so there is a chance that them all training would make the kids aware of the potential for harm and make them show more reserve (though the opposite may also be true and it makes people realise how much damage they could do!)
• Not everyone will progress / learn at an equal rate. So even if the bully is being trained too then there is no guarantee they will improve at the same rate as the others (though again the opposite is also true).

What you put in parentheses is why I don't think these two factors should be considered.  Because it makes the false assumption that the "good" kids are more likely progress faster than the "bad" kids, and that it's more likely turn "bad" kids lives around while there's a risk of making the "good" kids more violent.

Again, the moral alignment of people has nothing to do with how well they progress in any form of training or instruction.

This reminds me of the scene in The Breakfast Club where Bender was responding to Brian talking about why he failed shop class.

 

1 hour ago, DarthPenguin said:

• Opening it up to all kids doesn't mean that all the kids have to retain the right to be trained. If kids demonstrate that they fail to meet certain acceptance criteria for the training (eg bullying people etc.) then they could be stopped from attending the lesson/s

Let us not forget that there are plenty of "bad" people that know how to play the long game.  Even children.  With Christmas being ten days away, the most common way we see it is that when children finally reveal that they no longer believe in Santa Claus, they also reveal that they haven't believed in years.  They hid their skepticism out of fear that they wouldn't get anything for Christmas.  If children can do it for that, they can do the same thing to remain in martial arts training.

 

1 hour ago, DarthPenguin said:

• Teaching at school would remove the choice of styles from the parents to an extent. Eg for myself my son started Judo at 4. He really wanted to (and loves it) plus i personally think it is the best "foundational style" for a kid due to teaching the kids how to fall safely etc. plus the really well structured pathway for teaching from very young ages all the way to adulthood. He later added some Shotokan and he has told me he wants to try Kyokushin too and learn some mma (he is 9 currently so i told him he needs to be a little older first. Would i have liked it if the school just decided that he had to learn Muay Thai at age X? Probably not, it is a fantastic style but i would prefer him to try it when he is in his teens at least (and through his own choice). 
  • Also how would the school choose the style? Could see this causing plenty of issues too!

If the reason they're teaching a martial art is for self-defense, I'm assuming karate.  The reason is because they already have wrestling as part of normal physical education (at least when I was in high school), but you learn according the rules of the sport, making it rather useless for self-defense.

I'll admit to having very little exposure to judo, but in that limited exposure, it appears to be similar: the focus appears to be competition and sport, rather than self-defense.

[DarthPenguin]

21 hours ago, Furinkazan said:

What you put in parentheses is why I don't think these two factors should be considered.  Because it makes the false assumption that the "good" kids are more likely progress faster than the "bad" kids, and that it's more likely turn "bad" kids lives around while there's a risk of making the "good" kids more violent.

Again, the moral alignment of people has nothing to do with how well they progress in any form of training or instruction.

This reminds me of the scene in The Breakfast Club where Bender was responding to Brian talking about why he failed shop class.

Yeah that is true, there is no reason to assume that one or the other would improve at a faster rate. Though i would say that what i put into parentheses is also equally applicable towards training at any martial arts club.

 

21 hours ago, Furinkazan said:

Let us not forget that there are plenty of "bad" people that know how to play the long game.  Even children.  With Christmas being ten days away, the most common way we see it is that when children finally reveal that they no longer believe in Santa Claus, they also reveal that they haven't believed in years.  They hid their skepticism out of fear that they wouldn't get anything for Christmas.  If children can do it for that, they can do the same thing to remain in martial arts training.

All true but i think this also applies equally to any martial arts club. Nothing stopping the child playing the long game and training at a regular club. Long term martial arts training doesn't make someone a decent person by default - first example that pops into my head is Rousimar Palhares (there are other issues with him too i know) who basically liked to injure people and did it a lot with leg locks.

 

21 hours ago, Furinkazan said:

If the reason they're teaching a martial art is for self-defense, I'm assuming karate.  The reason is because they already have wrestling as part of normal physical education (at least when I was in high school), but you learn according the rules of the sport, making it rather useless for self-defense.

I'll admit to having very little exposure to judo, but in that limited exposure, it appears to be similar: the focus appears to be competition and sport, rather than self-defense.

This likely varies from country to country. I am in Scotland and there is no wrestling taught as part of school here (or indeed in most of the UK). Typically PE here is football/soccer; rugby; basketball; gymnastics; badminton. If anyone wanted to learn a martial art of any kind (including wrestling) it is done outside school.

At risk of shifting the focus of the discussion, learning the rules of the sport does not in my view make it useless for self defence. I remember our judo coach showing us all Uranage with the comment "if anyone ever starts on you in a bar and you can't avoid it then uranage them through a table - will put them down". I have always inherently disagreed with the assumption that the untrained/"self defence trained" fighter will use all kind of dirty tricks etc. but the trained individual magically loses the ability to do so. I remember watching an excellent video with the well known BJJ instructor Draculino demonstrating a triangle choke with the person being choked permitted to bite etc. The bite didnt work - he also pointed out that if they can bite him he could put his thumbs through both of their eyes as their head is trapped!

While the focus of the sport in judo is definitely competition and sport, hitting the ground hard hurts a lot. For self defence, in my view, one of the best ways to protect yourself is to down your opponent and get away. Slamming someone to the ground hard, when most assailants will not have great Ukemi (and tbh on concrete even if you do it will still hurt a tonne) will in most instances give you the time to get away safely.