This is a question/statement/topic that should interest us all. I was reading the "Rank" thread and got down to Victor Smith's message that spoke about teaching. I thought it was a very intriguing note because it speaks to all of us who have some rank. What does holding rank mean to teaching? Just because we have a black belt does it mean we can suddenly teach the art to people? Just because we have some title bestowed upon us does it mean that we are an effective instructor of young karate-ka? I don't think so.
Let's face it. Some people are not meant to teach. Content matter aside, they don't have the innate talent to be a teacher. And yes, you do need that. I don't believe it is something you can learn. I'm sure we have all had those teachers in elementary, middle, high school, or even college who had wonderful content knowledge, but shouldn't have been anywhere near a classroom podium.
Sensei Mattson has a wonderful program going on at his dojo where he gives prospective teachers a 3 month chance to see if they can teach the art, or simply give them a chance to hone their skills if they do not have a dojo of their own. This is essential if the assessment is honest. For example, if a person simply does not have the talent to teach, they should be told that. If they show a talent, then they should be encouraged to progress that talent and refine it. It's a hard thing to be blunt and honest, but after reading some of these posts, I think there are quite a few people here who could perform this task, :-)
Victor also speaks of the certification process for public educators. As a public educator myself, I know the process all too well. It is extremely difficult to get certification in MA these days (and not too lucritive anyway). Should these standards be set up for obtaining a martial arts teaching degree? It would be tough to enforce, but I would be for that. It certainly would lessen this talk about phony rank and title a little.
Teaching is an art, like it or not. There are some that are extremely good and some who are not. The people who are not will continue to teach, but what will they produce? It may be time to accredit those who do well in "this" art because they are the ones who will produce quality from their schools.
yours in budo,
mike
teaching
Moderator: Available
-
mikemurphy
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
- Contact:
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
teaching
Mike
Actually you raise up not just one good point, but a collection of points. Just what the heck does rank mean anymore anyway? It could mean one of the following:
* Technical ability (via power, precision of movement, breadth and depth of knowledge)
* Time in grade(s) actively practicing.
* Teaching ability and/or years teaching and/or contributions to the style through teaching
* Achievements through competition (as in judo)
* Contributions to the system through various "research" efforts
So yes, teaching and/or ability to teach comes into play here. Interesting though in the academic model that those with bachelors degrees need to separately acquire teaching certification to do such, whereas I believe a Ph.D. gives one a de facto right to teach (not necessarily a good thing). So even in that model it isn't perfect, as you and I both know that many Ph.D.s should never leave their labs.
I think the academic model suggests a parallel model for martial arts. That is a certain rank is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be able to teach. Thus one should first demonstrate technical knowledge through rank, and then separately be accredited for teaching through a teaching certification program. I do know that there have been efforts to create such a model, and I think that is a very good thing. But the demand in the marketplace doesn't seem to be there yet (correct me if I'm wrong, George).
- Bill
Actually you raise up not just one good point, but a collection of points. Just what the heck does rank mean anymore anyway? It could mean one of the following:
* Technical ability (via power, precision of movement, breadth and depth of knowledge)
* Time in grade(s) actively practicing.
* Teaching ability and/or years teaching and/or contributions to the style through teaching
* Achievements through competition (as in judo)
* Contributions to the system through various "research" efforts
So yes, teaching and/or ability to teach comes into play here. Interesting though in the academic model that those with bachelors degrees need to separately acquire teaching certification to do such, whereas I believe a Ph.D. gives one a de facto right to teach (not necessarily a good thing). So even in that model it isn't perfect, as you and I both know that many Ph.D.s should never leave their labs.
I think the academic model suggests a parallel model for martial arts. That is a certain rank is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be able to teach. Thus one should first demonstrate technical knowledge through rank, and then separately be accredited for teaching through a teaching certification program. I do know that there have been efforts to create such a model, and I think that is a very good thing. But the demand in the marketplace doesn't seem to be there yet (correct me if I'm wrong, George).
- Bill
teaching
If I might add a word on teaching in the Martial Arts. In my mind too often, regardless of system, the acts of teaching get confused and it is assumed competency in one aspect is the same as qualification at every level.
Consider several teaching levels.
Teaching (1) the ability to impart basic technques to (1a) children (1b) teenagers (1c)learning disabled (1d)physically challenged (1e)young adults (1f)mature adults (1g) old *****'s such as myself.
Teaching (2) the ability to impart basic kata
Teaching (3) the ability to impart advanced kata
Teaching (4) the ability to develop basic kumite skills
Teaching (5) the abilty to develop advanced kumite skills
Teaching (6) the abilty to teach basic applications (1st 2-4 years of Dan trainig)
Teaching (7) the abilty to teach intermediate applications (years 5-10 of Dan training
Teaching (8) the ability to teach advanced applications (years 10 and up in Dan training)
And so forth. I can see developing some levels of instructional ability in Brown and all Black Belts, but the Intructor, IMVHO, needs to be able to swing at all of these concepts. Even basic approval of someone can take decades.
I have a very close friend who practices/teaches Eagle Claw Kung Fu, a very very complex system. He's been training almost 30 years, and waited until a few years ago to openly teach it, so as not to be a 2nd rater.
The model for developing Instructors can't be simplified if there is any hope to advance beyond the morass of todays MA world.
But what do I know, I've only tried to figure this out for about 26 years myself.
For more information about how I'm trying to look at these issues, feel free to browse my web site www.funkydragon.com/bushi it loads a little slow, but I hope it has a little merit.
Hope I haven't bored you all.
------------------
Victor Smith
Consider several teaching levels.
Teaching (1) the ability to impart basic technques to (1a) children (1b) teenagers (1c)learning disabled (1d)physically challenged (1e)young adults (1f)mature adults (1g) old *****'s such as myself.
Teaching (2) the ability to impart basic kata
Teaching (3) the ability to impart advanced kata
Teaching (4) the ability to develop basic kumite skills
Teaching (5) the abilty to develop advanced kumite skills
Teaching (6) the abilty to teach basic applications (1st 2-4 years of Dan trainig)
Teaching (7) the abilty to teach intermediate applications (years 5-10 of Dan training
Teaching (8) the ability to teach advanced applications (years 10 and up in Dan training)
And so forth. I can see developing some levels of instructional ability in Brown and all Black Belts, but the Intructor, IMVHO, needs to be able to swing at all of these concepts. Even basic approval of someone can take decades.
I have a very close friend who practices/teaches Eagle Claw Kung Fu, a very very complex system. He's been training almost 30 years, and waited until a few years ago to openly teach it, so as not to be a 2nd rater.
The model for developing Instructors can't be simplified if there is any hope to advance beyond the morass of todays MA world.
But what do I know, I've only tried to figure this out for about 26 years myself.
For more information about how I'm trying to look at these issues, feel free to browse my web site www.funkydragon.com/bushi it loads a little slow, but I hope it has a little merit.
Hope I haven't bored you all.
------------------
Victor Smith
teaching
I have tried so hard to stay out of this one - but somehow Bill-san yanked my chain in the last post...
Two items: 1) dan rank and 2) teaching certification
1) What does rank mean anyway? Very good question! Mine means a lot to me - primarily because the conditions that J.D.-san so eloquently enumerated in one of his recent posts on the subject apply - I was recommended for it by my sensei after years of regular and hard training. I was tested in front of a multi-organizational board and I have the approval of my peers. My sensei and his senior approved and authenticated my rank - and it has meaning for me - and for my students. It isn't something I received for simply paying tuition for a long enough time or flip-flopping organizations. I did not ask to test - in fact - I tried to get out of the test not feeling that I had accomplished enough in my study to take that step. My sensei felt differently, and out of respect for him I tested when he told me to - not when the calendar said I had enough time in grade or whatever the phrase is.
As far as the issuing organization - that doesn't mean as much to me as the process I went through. My tests were HARD - and I felt great afterward - like I had proved something to myself, my peers and my sensei's peers. My last dan certificate even has a different issuing organization than the one prior to that - why? Because my sensei's senior changed organizations. Do I care? No - I still have the same sensei, the same senior, the same process, the same test, and the same multi-organizational board. I value the conditions I had to meet - and therefore value my dan rank - regardless of the issuing organization. It is the instructor's signature and his senior's that has meaning for me.
Again - what does rank mean? For me it is a validation for my sensei - a credit to him - that he has what it takes as a teacher to produce a student that he is proud enough of to put up in front of HIS peers to be validated as a dan rank. It's a tradition thing. If I wasn't teaching, I wouldn't even care about testing for my next rank - but he has impressed on me that part of running a school is the validation of rank for the student's sake. Which is also primarily the only reason he associates with anyone outside of the dojo - he has steadfastly remained out of any type of inter-dojo activities primarily because of his distaste for politics. Which is another topic and I'll leave that alone for now.
As for your list Bill-san, I agree with the first point - but I disagree strongly with the next four as far as dan rank is concerned. Each of those elements can and should play a part in the awarding of a teaching certification - but not for dan rank. As Mike-san points out very well, and you second in your remark about PhD's - not everyone with the technical or content knowledge should be teaching - teaching is separate from knowledge. Yes, one needs a certain amount of knowledge and technical ability to teach - but the ability to impart that information is separate and apart from the possession of said knowledge. I've seen a couple very powerful Okinawans - and while Sensei Tomoyose's seminar was very instructional, I've been in seminars by other Okinawans where aside from the language barrier, the seminar was more a showcase for their talent and ability than it was an opportunity to develop my own technique. On the other hand - a class taught by Van Canna Sensei leaves the student with tools they can take immediately into their training - developing their own art into something more personal and powerful. THAT is teaching. An educator is responsible for fanning the spark in the student - letting them jump forward in their own individual journey of discovery. Not just to provide the opportunity to stand on stage and demonstrate what they have learned themselves. (Although many do!)
So this takes me to the second issue - that of teaching and certification.
This is where I am truly disgusted. I have a teaching certificate from Okinawa - a "shidoin" I believe it is called (apprentice instructor) - and I received it through our own dojo tradition: after attaining the appropriate dan rank - my sensei recommended me for the teaching certificate to his senior. After attaining my next rank, I can apply - through the recommendation of my sensei and his senior, for the next level of teaching certificate, a "jun-shihan." For the shidoin, at my sensei's request, I submitted an application and a resume of sorts outlining my teaching experience under my sensei and solo. Then I received my certificate - which I was proud of - until I learned that all it takes these days to get one is a check made out in the appropriate amount and sent to Okinawa. MY certificate means something to me because of how I received it. But it carries no weight in comparison to other certificates because it is of the same caliber now as those K-mart style diplomas that sparked this discussion. Buy one get one free at the blue light special will no doubt follow. It is HERE that we need some serious work within our style if we care about preserving it at all.
I am against over regulation and big government and McDojos and franchising rank - but teaching our style can and should have some serious guidelines - some that MEAN something - making a teaching certificate something to be EARNED not BOUGHT and that will assist in preserving the traditions of our style. Sure - nothing is foolproof. There are educators in our school systems that slide through - have a teacher's certificate, and have no business teaching. But something the certification process DOES do is greatly reduce their numbers. In order to become a teacher, one must complete not only the necessary education and training, but also submit to background checks, reference checks, validation of their education and certain testing procedures. As a dojo owner and teacher, I would be willing to submit to a certifications process similar to what I have gone through for my public school teaching certification, in fact I would welcome it. As with any new system, there will be bugs to work out, but let's start somewhere before this ridiculous wave of PURCHASED rank and teaching certifications becomes the norm in Uechi-ryu. Save that for the splinter groups. And even if our style is splintered - there is no reason why a multi-organizational association of teaching certification can not be brought about. To include seniors from all sides if they could be persuaded. I would suggest Senseis such as James Thompson, Shinjo, George Mattson, Van Canna, Jack Summers, Frank Gorman, Gushi, And any other Senior-senior ranks from as many diverse groups of Uechi/Shohei/Pangainoon-ryu as possible. Sure - some of these S-S-S's may have issues with one another - but they all seem to care enough about Uechi-ryu to maintain a certain level of involvement - a multi-organizational teacher approval board does not have to say that they agree with each other's politics, but that they agree that someone who wants to teach Uechi-ryu must have a certain level of proficiency, apprentice time teaching under another accredited teacher, and sufficient dan rank. A multi-organizational approval of applications that meet the criteria would do much to increase the validity of a teaching certificate.
So we need a few things here - if anyone even wants to take this further than some spouting off on a forum:
1) A list of standards - for both dan ranks and for teaching ranks - which SHOULD BE KEPT SEPARATE
2) A group of multi-organizational senior-senior-seniors who will agree to approve these standards, and will approve applications for teaching rank, perhaps once a year. Easy enough to submit a list of applicants and their qualifications in this multi-media world - email - fax - whatever - then a consensus can be reached on approvals and/or rejections, and the certificates can be issued. This brings into play an intermediary agency of sorts that will handle getting the information to the senior approval board, and also the issuance of certificates - but that can be worked out once the board is assembled. Notice I do not involve Okinawa in this circle. THE SHOGUN IS DEAD and we need to evolve into a new world order here (which is yet another topic) - I have the UTMOST respect for Okinawa - but they have their own standards and rules for opening dojos and teaching in Okinawa - the U.S. is a different ball game. I have enough confidence in our senior-seniors, especially in those named above among many others, that reside in our own country and are familiar with the challenges we have here in OUR country when it comes to credibility, politics, legal issues, running a dojo as a business, tradition, respect and all of those considerations HERE. Not half a world away. I am NOT suggesting to break all ties with Okinawa - (though I'm sure I will be misinterpreted and misquoted as I VERY often am) and I prefer personally to receive my dan certificate from Okinawa still (after validation here in front of a multi organizational board - as all my dan ranks thus far have been) - but a teaching certification should be handled in the country of operation. As a teacher in an elementary school, I doubt very seriously if I could have gotten my job with one of those bargain basement degrees advertised on that email message, much less with a so called "teaching certificate" issued in a foreign country.
I am going on much too long here - obviously this issue needs more than just discussion however. I have no earthly idea how to even begin to effect these changes. I am a small-fry myself and don't really feel comfortable making suggestions like this to a senior-senior-senior - but here's my two cents on the world-wide-web. I remain willing to help row the boat if someone with more time and experience would like to captain the ship.
Enough ranting from me! I believe the traditional closing on this forum is:
"I yield the soapbox..."
Peace,
Lori
Two items: 1) dan rank and 2) teaching certification
1) What does rank mean anyway? Very good question! Mine means a lot to me - primarily because the conditions that J.D.-san so eloquently enumerated in one of his recent posts on the subject apply - I was recommended for it by my sensei after years of regular and hard training. I was tested in front of a multi-organizational board and I have the approval of my peers. My sensei and his senior approved and authenticated my rank - and it has meaning for me - and for my students. It isn't something I received for simply paying tuition for a long enough time or flip-flopping organizations. I did not ask to test - in fact - I tried to get out of the test not feeling that I had accomplished enough in my study to take that step. My sensei felt differently, and out of respect for him I tested when he told me to - not when the calendar said I had enough time in grade or whatever the phrase is.
As far as the issuing organization - that doesn't mean as much to me as the process I went through. My tests were HARD - and I felt great afterward - like I had proved something to myself, my peers and my sensei's peers. My last dan certificate even has a different issuing organization than the one prior to that - why? Because my sensei's senior changed organizations. Do I care? No - I still have the same sensei, the same senior, the same process, the same test, and the same multi-organizational board. I value the conditions I had to meet - and therefore value my dan rank - regardless of the issuing organization. It is the instructor's signature and his senior's that has meaning for me.
Again - what does rank mean? For me it is a validation for my sensei - a credit to him - that he has what it takes as a teacher to produce a student that he is proud enough of to put up in front of HIS peers to be validated as a dan rank. It's a tradition thing. If I wasn't teaching, I wouldn't even care about testing for my next rank - but he has impressed on me that part of running a school is the validation of rank for the student's sake. Which is also primarily the only reason he associates with anyone outside of the dojo - he has steadfastly remained out of any type of inter-dojo activities primarily because of his distaste for politics. Which is another topic and I'll leave that alone for now.
As for your list Bill-san, I agree with the first point - but I disagree strongly with the next four as far as dan rank is concerned. Each of those elements can and should play a part in the awarding of a teaching certification - but not for dan rank. As Mike-san points out very well, and you second in your remark about PhD's - not everyone with the technical or content knowledge should be teaching - teaching is separate from knowledge. Yes, one needs a certain amount of knowledge and technical ability to teach - but the ability to impart that information is separate and apart from the possession of said knowledge. I've seen a couple very powerful Okinawans - and while Sensei Tomoyose's seminar was very instructional, I've been in seminars by other Okinawans where aside from the language barrier, the seminar was more a showcase for their talent and ability than it was an opportunity to develop my own technique. On the other hand - a class taught by Van Canna Sensei leaves the student with tools they can take immediately into their training - developing their own art into something more personal and powerful. THAT is teaching. An educator is responsible for fanning the spark in the student - letting them jump forward in their own individual journey of discovery. Not just to provide the opportunity to stand on stage and demonstrate what they have learned themselves. (Although many do!)
So this takes me to the second issue - that of teaching and certification.
This is where I am truly disgusted. I have a teaching certificate from Okinawa - a "shidoin" I believe it is called (apprentice instructor) - and I received it through our own dojo tradition: after attaining the appropriate dan rank - my sensei recommended me for the teaching certificate to his senior. After attaining my next rank, I can apply - through the recommendation of my sensei and his senior, for the next level of teaching certificate, a "jun-shihan." For the shidoin, at my sensei's request, I submitted an application and a resume of sorts outlining my teaching experience under my sensei and solo. Then I received my certificate - which I was proud of - until I learned that all it takes these days to get one is a check made out in the appropriate amount and sent to Okinawa. MY certificate means something to me because of how I received it. But it carries no weight in comparison to other certificates because it is of the same caliber now as those K-mart style diplomas that sparked this discussion. Buy one get one free at the blue light special will no doubt follow. It is HERE that we need some serious work within our style if we care about preserving it at all.
I am against over regulation and big government and McDojos and franchising rank - but teaching our style can and should have some serious guidelines - some that MEAN something - making a teaching certificate something to be EARNED not BOUGHT and that will assist in preserving the traditions of our style. Sure - nothing is foolproof. There are educators in our school systems that slide through - have a teacher's certificate, and have no business teaching. But something the certification process DOES do is greatly reduce their numbers. In order to become a teacher, one must complete not only the necessary education and training, but also submit to background checks, reference checks, validation of their education and certain testing procedures. As a dojo owner and teacher, I would be willing to submit to a certifications process similar to what I have gone through for my public school teaching certification, in fact I would welcome it. As with any new system, there will be bugs to work out, but let's start somewhere before this ridiculous wave of PURCHASED rank and teaching certifications becomes the norm in Uechi-ryu. Save that for the splinter groups. And even if our style is splintered - there is no reason why a multi-organizational association of teaching certification can not be brought about. To include seniors from all sides if they could be persuaded. I would suggest Senseis such as James Thompson, Shinjo, George Mattson, Van Canna, Jack Summers, Frank Gorman, Gushi, And any other Senior-senior ranks from as many diverse groups of Uechi/Shohei/Pangainoon-ryu as possible. Sure - some of these S-S-S's may have issues with one another - but they all seem to care enough about Uechi-ryu to maintain a certain level of involvement - a multi-organizational teacher approval board does not have to say that they agree with each other's politics, but that they agree that someone who wants to teach Uechi-ryu must have a certain level of proficiency, apprentice time teaching under another accredited teacher, and sufficient dan rank. A multi-organizational approval of applications that meet the criteria would do much to increase the validity of a teaching certificate.
So we need a few things here - if anyone even wants to take this further than some spouting off on a forum:
1) A list of standards - for both dan ranks and for teaching ranks - which SHOULD BE KEPT SEPARATE
2) A group of multi-organizational senior-senior-seniors who will agree to approve these standards, and will approve applications for teaching rank, perhaps once a year. Easy enough to submit a list of applicants and their qualifications in this multi-media world - email - fax - whatever - then a consensus can be reached on approvals and/or rejections, and the certificates can be issued. This brings into play an intermediary agency of sorts that will handle getting the information to the senior approval board, and also the issuance of certificates - but that can be worked out once the board is assembled. Notice I do not involve Okinawa in this circle. THE SHOGUN IS DEAD and we need to evolve into a new world order here (which is yet another topic) - I have the UTMOST respect for Okinawa - but they have their own standards and rules for opening dojos and teaching in Okinawa - the U.S. is a different ball game. I have enough confidence in our senior-seniors, especially in those named above among many others, that reside in our own country and are familiar with the challenges we have here in OUR country when it comes to credibility, politics, legal issues, running a dojo as a business, tradition, respect and all of those considerations HERE. Not half a world away. I am NOT suggesting to break all ties with Okinawa - (though I'm sure I will be misinterpreted and misquoted as I VERY often am) and I prefer personally to receive my dan certificate from Okinawa still (after validation here in front of a multi organizational board - as all my dan ranks thus far have been) - but a teaching certification should be handled in the country of operation. As a teacher in an elementary school, I doubt very seriously if I could have gotten my job with one of those bargain basement degrees advertised on that email message, much less with a so called "teaching certificate" issued in a foreign country.
I am going on much too long here - obviously this issue needs more than just discussion however. I have no earthly idea how to even begin to effect these changes. I am a small-fry myself and don't really feel comfortable making suggestions like this to a senior-senior-senior - but here's my two cents on the world-wide-web. I remain willing to help row the boat if someone with more time and experience would like to captain the ship.
Enough ranting from me! I believe the traditional closing on this forum is:
"I yield the soapbox..."
Peace,
Lori
teaching
Lori-san,
I see the angle you are coming from and I agree with the tack you are taking [LOF and all] *smile*…
It really makes lots of sense; but then again, since when a bunch of egocentric seniors actually distinguished themselves with common sense?
Seniors are in truth a laughable bunch. On the surface they may even be polite and all smiles and ask about your family and kids, but deep inside there is envy and elitism and they barely tolerate other’s high rank, harboring very real thoughts of supremacy! Hard to believe, but very true; yet most are in denial…. Think about it; want to bet that individually they have a tendency to believe they are the only ones “ really” worthy of their “ master “ rating with the rest just a bunch of marginal wannabes? Okay…how many high-ranking toads [ugly and venomous] do you think you and I know? Yet they believe they wear a precious jewel in their heads! These “men/women who would be kings/Queens” will never make it working together, let alone “converse” with each other!
This quote says it all: “ He is the severest censor of the merits of others who has the least worth of his own “ [E. L. Magoon]
Does this make any sense? I think you are reading between the lines all-right!
And from another “ angle “, having seen you workout and teach, I agree that your rank and qualifications, are as authentic as they can be, and you make your sensei proud by being one of the strongest and most well conditioned, Uechi-woman around! Can you take a compliment?
------------------
Van Canna
[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited 11-18-99).]
I see the angle you are coming from and I agree with the tack you are taking [LOF and all] *smile*…
It really makes lots of sense; but then again, since when a bunch of egocentric seniors actually distinguished themselves with common sense?
Seniors are in truth a laughable bunch. On the surface they may even be polite and all smiles and ask about your family and kids, but deep inside there is envy and elitism and they barely tolerate other’s high rank, harboring very real thoughts of supremacy! Hard to believe, but very true; yet most are in denial…. Think about it; want to bet that individually they have a tendency to believe they are the only ones “ really” worthy of their “ master “ rating with the rest just a bunch of marginal wannabes? Okay…how many high-ranking toads [ugly and venomous] do you think you and I know? Yet they believe they wear a precious jewel in their heads! These “men/women who would be kings/Queens” will never make it working together, let alone “converse” with each other!
This quote says it all: “ He is the severest censor of the merits of others who has the least worth of his own “ [E. L. Magoon]
Does this make any sense? I think you are reading between the lines all-right!
And from another “ angle “, having seen you workout and teach, I agree that your rank and qualifications, are as authentic as they can be, and you make your sensei proud by being one of the strongest and most well conditioned, Uechi-woman around! Can you take a compliment?
------------------
Van Canna
[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited 11-18-99).]
-
mikemurphy
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
- Contact:
teaching
To Bill, Victor, Lori, and Van Canna Sensei(s):
Your points are well taken (and Lori, don't hold it in next time...say what you really mean) :-)
Let me try to address this one on one...Ready???
Bill sensei,
I really hate to get back into what does rank mean because I was really trying to stay on the teaching aspect although I know they coexist.
1. Rank should be separate from any kind of teaching certification. I say it again, some people are not meant to teach, but that should not hold them back from attaining rank in our system. So technical expertise and accomplishment should still be kept at a high standard by each and every test board for getting rank. No doubt. Should it be there for a teaching certificate? I don't believe it should be a end all qualification. For example, I don't have to have the greatest form to be able to teach good form.
2. Time-in-grade? Definately! Like any form of teaching, if a person is not practicing at it, they become stale. Teaching is an art of ongoing advancement. The more you teach, the better you get at it. True?
3. I think that contributions to the art is important, however, it would have to be further qualified. For instance, a person who puts on a seminar/tournament every year is certainly contributing to the progress of the art, but is anything really happening in terms of his/her progress in the arts?
4. Lastly, I don't think competition belongs anywhere near a teaching qualification. I applaud those that compete at any level, but I don't see the ability to fight in relation to aiding the teaching process.
Victor-san,
I would add a couple of more point to your list; ones that separates the good teachers with the fakes:
a. The ability to tie in themes and basics to any technique or exercise.
b. The ability to bring anything back to basics.
c. The ability to relate to your audience.
This one needs explanation. For example, talking above your class. If you have a bunch of beginners in class and your are discussing "Dan stuff" then you lose them. It works the other way as well. You don't want to bore the Dans while trying to speak down to the white belts. A good teacher can take any subject and teach it so that everyone gets something out of it.
Lori-san,
Wow, where do I start? Well, I'll leave what rank means to you alone (I agree by-the-way).
Let's just stay on teacher certification. I posed the question in the other post about the Shihan title with the assumption that it was a teacher's title. I wanted to know why it was not still issued in the SOKE as far as I know. Sensei Mattson has decide that it really doesn't mean anything at this point (paraphrasing here). I disagree. Not with his statement, but with the implication that it could mean something if the correct standards were put on it. A master teacher should be recognized as one who has the ability to teach. So, short of attending someone's class for an indeterminate amount of time, how do we know if someone can teach?
Perhaps with the right minds at work we can resurrect this Shihan or equivilent rank to award them to qualified teachers. Of course, there would be difficulty and problems setting it up, but there are plenty of good teachers out there that everyone recognizes that could serve as the board.
1. I agree that standards should be kept separate. It's the only way. Just as much as the titles should be kept separate from rank (Renshi, Kyoshi, Hanshi)
2. I disagree with you that the board should be just seniors. Certainly dan ranks, but the onus should be on teaching ability, not on length of service or how many gold stripes you have on your belt. I know several seniors who shouldn't be anywhere near the front of the class. And that is not a knock on them; they are excenllent practioners, they just s*** at teaching to be honest.
Van Canna Sensei,
What can I say? What you say (as always)is right on. It is just as I was saying. The seniors should be held to the same standards of teaching (not training)as anyone else, and those you want to stand above the rest, should prove their teaching ability. I say again, rank means squat in regards to the ability to teach. Let's recognize those that can teach!!
Yours in budo,
Mike
Your points are well taken (and Lori, don't hold it in next time...say what you really mean) :-)
Let me try to address this one on one...Ready???
Bill sensei,
I really hate to get back into what does rank mean because I was really trying to stay on the teaching aspect although I know they coexist.
1. Rank should be separate from any kind of teaching certification. I say it again, some people are not meant to teach, but that should not hold them back from attaining rank in our system. So technical expertise and accomplishment should still be kept at a high standard by each and every test board for getting rank. No doubt. Should it be there for a teaching certificate? I don't believe it should be a end all qualification. For example, I don't have to have the greatest form to be able to teach good form.
2. Time-in-grade? Definately! Like any form of teaching, if a person is not practicing at it, they become stale. Teaching is an art of ongoing advancement. The more you teach, the better you get at it. True?
3. I think that contributions to the art is important, however, it would have to be further qualified. For instance, a person who puts on a seminar/tournament every year is certainly contributing to the progress of the art, but is anything really happening in terms of his/her progress in the arts?
4. Lastly, I don't think competition belongs anywhere near a teaching qualification. I applaud those that compete at any level, but I don't see the ability to fight in relation to aiding the teaching process.
Victor-san,
I would add a couple of more point to your list; ones that separates the good teachers with the fakes:
a. The ability to tie in themes and basics to any technique or exercise.
b. The ability to bring anything back to basics.
c. The ability to relate to your audience.
This one needs explanation. For example, talking above your class. If you have a bunch of beginners in class and your are discussing "Dan stuff" then you lose them. It works the other way as well. You don't want to bore the Dans while trying to speak down to the white belts. A good teacher can take any subject and teach it so that everyone gets something out of it.
Lori-san,
Wow, where do I start? Well, I'll leave what rank means to you alone (I agree by-the-way).
Let's just stay on teacher certification. I posed the question in the other post about the Shihan title with the assumption that it was a teacher's title. I wanted to know why it was not still issued in the SOKE as far as I know. Sensei Mattson has decide that it really doesn't mean anything at this point (paraphrasing here). I disagree. Not with his statement, but with the implication that it could mean something if the correct standards were put on it. A master teacher should be recognized as one who has the ability to teach. So, short of attending someone's class for an indeterminate amount of time, how do we know if someone can teach?
Perhaps with the right minds at work we can resurrect this Shihan or equivilent rank to award them to qualified teachers. Of course, there would be difficulty and problems setting it up, but there are plenty of good teachers out there that everyone recognizes that could serve as the board.
1. I agree that standards should be kept separate. It's the only way. Just as much as the titles should be kept separate from rank (Renshi, Kyoshi, Hanshi)
2. I disagree with you that the board should be just seniors. Certainly dan ranks, but the onus should be on teaching ability, not on length of service or how many gold stripes you have on your belt. I know several seniors who shouldn't be anywhere near the front of the class. And that is not a knock on them; they are excenllent practioners, they just s*** at teaching to be honest.
Van Canna Sensei,
What can I say? What you say (as always)is right on. It is just as I was saying. The seniors should be held to the same standards of teaching (not training)as anyone else, and those you want to stand above the rest, should prove their teaching ability. I say again, rank means squat in regards to the ability to teach. Let's recognize those that can teach!!
Yours in budo,
Mike
teaching
Mike-san, I agree with the additions you made to my list of instructors requirements.
The quick list I pulled out of my head was not meant to be all-inclusive. I’m not sure if anyone ever develops all of these abilities, but an instructor, in my mind, should be on the track to try to do so.
When I began teaching about 22 years ago I was as unqualified as anyone to do so. I was a new Sho-dan, and the only way I could continue my Isshinryu practice was to be come an instructor, and in the Boys Club of Scranton at that.
Somehow I and my students survived. My wife (a Physical Education Instructor) patiently took the time to guide me on how to teach children. More suprisingly, she showed me her college texts on teaching Junior High School Girls Swim Teams, and I found more information on that subject in any 20 Karate texts I’ve ever seen. [Dosen’t mean they don’t exist, I haven’t seen the massive Ueichi Ryu text, or whatever information the JKA has in its archives for training their International Instructors <grin>.]
I was wary of organizations, advice passed to me by my original Isshinryu Instructor and looked long and hard for a model.
What stuck me was it should be the practice of Ryukyu Te before 1900, before the modern era. Only teach a small group and guide them with every fiber of your being.
A brief conversation years later I had with Zempo Shimabuku convinced me I was on the right path for me. He explained how in Okinawa, no one would go out of their way to train under a 2nd or 3rd Dan. Instead they would choose the 60 or 70 year old instructor. Now I know that isn’t proof, but it makes sense.
The arts are far to new in the USA for the cream to separate in public. Skilled practioners and instructors exist, but too often they are hidden, and mostly on purpose.
If I wanted to set the right example, I had to work at it. I’ve tried to study as often as possible with qualified instructors, and learn from their examples.
I broke my own rules, and joined an inter-group martial arts organization. Great training and after a few years I was chosen to become a Renshi in the group. Eventually moral issues of the group not living up to the original charter, and my being one of the Seniors was blessing the others actions caused me to Un-Renshi myself. Great training wasn’t sufficient reason to be less than exemplary in ones own actions. But everything teaches.
As time passed the only way which makes sense to me is to grow qualified instructors from the ground up. Which does mean spending a decade or two together. You must know the man or woman to have faith in their choice to become an instructor. You must develop their skills in many different areas, not to parrot your own, but to understand the direction you’re showing and to use their skill to grow and of course surpass your efforts I n the same direction.
Part of the common problems the Martial Arts face, is the fact that the ability to teach something doesn’t equate to the skill to understand the levels involved in all the arts.
Just as the role of rank being subverted in its role as guide to become the goal, when the real goal seems to really be the ability to continue to dip into the infinite layers of all of the arts, and never stop to come up. If one takes that immersion, rank awards are nice recognition that you’re staying all wet in joy and growth.
I would suggest developing instructors to move all the arts forward is the greatest challenge either the guide or the trainee can ever hope to undertake.
BTW, the reason I dropped by was that George Mattson pulled some of my Bubushi writings off Cyber Dojo and posted it to the Library, here. So I sort of followed along.
The quick list I pulled out of my head was not meant to be all-inclusive. I’m not sure if anyone ever develops all of these abilities, but an instructor, in my mind, should be on the track to try to do so.
When I began teaching about 22 years ago I was as unqualified as anyone to do so. I was a new Sho-dan, and the only way I could continue my Isshinryu practice was to be come an instructor, and in the Boys Club of Scranton at that.
Somehow I and my students survived. My wife (a Physical Education Instructor) patiently took the time to guide me on how to teach children. More suprisingly, she showed me her college texts on teaching Junior High School Girls Swim Teams, and I found more information on that subject in any 20 Karate texts I’ve ever seen. [Dosen’t mean they don’t exist, I haven’t seen the massive Ueichi Ryu text, or whatever information the JKA has in its archives for training their International Instructors <grin>.]
I was wary of organizations, advice passed to me by my original Isshinryu Instructor and looked long and hard for a model.
What stuck me was it should be the practice of Ryukyu Te before 1900, before the modern era. Only teach a small group and guide them with every fiber of your being.
A brief conversation years later I had with Zempo Shimabuku convinced me I was on the right path for me. He explained how in Okinawa, no one would go out of their way to train under a 2nd or 3rd Dan. Instead they would choose the 60 or 70 year old instructor. Now I know that isn’t proof, but it makes sense.
The arts are far to new in the USA for the cream to separate in public. Skilled practioners and instructors exist, but too often they are hidden, and mostly on purpose.
If I wanted to set the right example, I had to work at it. I’ve tried to study as often as possible with qualified instructors, and learn from their examples.
I broke my own rules, and joined an inter-group martial arts organization. Great training and after a few years I was chosen to become a Renshi in the group. Eventually moral issues of the group not living up to the original charter, and my being one of the Seniors was blessing the others actions caused me to Un-Renshi myself. Great training wasn’t sufficient reason to be less than exemplary in ones own actions. But everything teaches.
As time passed the only way which makes sense to me is to grow qualified instructors from the ground up. Which does mean spending a decade or two together. You must know the man or woman to have faith in their choice to become an instructor. You must develop their skills in many different areas, not to parrot your own, but to understand the direction you’re showing and to use their skill to grow and of course surpass your efforts I n the same direction.
Part of the common problems the Martial Arts face, is the fact that the ability to teach something doesn’t equate to the skill to understand the levels involved in all the arts.
Just as the role of rank being subverted in its role as guide to become the goal, when the real goal seems to really be the ability to continue to dip into the infinite layers of all of the arts, and never stop to come up. If one takes that immersion, rank awards are nice recognition that you’re staying all wet in joy and growth.
I would suggest developing instructors to move all the arts forward is the greatest challenge either the guide or the trainee can ever hope to undertake.
BTW, the reason I dropped by was that George Mattson pulled some of my Bubushi writings off Cyber Dojo and posted it to the Library, here. So I sort of followed along.
-
Shelly King
teaching
All right, like Lori-san, I was going to stay out of this, but you have caught my attention. I'm personally still trying to figure out for myself how all this works, but so far this is how I understand dan ranks...please keep in mind this is solely my uninformed opinion...and though this will sound like I'm talking about rank and not teaching, just be patient...
Dan-Ranks: Shodan up to and including Yondan are based on skill and knowledge, during which time you can recieve a vice, assistant, whatever you want to call it, teaching certificate. Assuming you are able to prove a desire to teach by working under another instructor, recommended by your sensei, and able to demonstrate your teaching ability to a board of seniors.
Godan and up are based more on your devotion to and your work for spreading and maintaining the quality of Uechi. That since, chances are, someone will not improve technically after Yondan, they are then judged on the quality (please note I said quality, not quantity) of students they are producing.
So, I think, up to Yondan, rank and teaching are too separate items, but for Godan and up they are if not the same very much related.
Again, this is my opinion and I make no claims to truely understanding the situation.
------------------
Shelly
[This message has been edited by Shelly King (edited 11-19-99).]
Dan-Ranks: Shodan up to and including Yondan are based on skill and knowledge, during which time you can recieve a vice, assistant, whatever you want to call it, teaching certificate. Assuming you are able to prove a desire to teach by working under another instructor, recommended by your sensei, and able to demonstrate your teaching ability to a board of seniors.
Godan and up are based more on your devotion to and your work for spreading and maintaining the quality of Uechi. That since, chances are, someone will not improve technically after Yondan, they are then judged on the quality (please note I said quality, not quantity) of students they are producing.
So, I think, up to Yondan, rank and teaching are too separate items, but for Godan and up they are if not the same very much related.
Again, this is my opinion and I make no claims to truely understanding the situation.
------------------
Shelly
[This message has been edited by Shelly King (edited 11-19-99).]
teaching
To all....I think you can be the judge what your rank means to you. Rank is something that should be earned, never given...but perhaps this should go on a different thread.
As for teaching...why not get students to evaluate senseis...your highest ranked students should be able to give feedback (both positive and negative) as to your teaching skills...
------------------
As for teaching...why not get students to evaluate senseis...your highest ranked students should be able to give feedback (both positive and negative) as to your teaching skills...
------------------
teaching
The reason rank and teaching come up together like this is that you are talking about core problems of competency and behavior.
There are many worthy items of discussion being brought out here and plenty of good ideas to open a discussion and attempt to reach agreement. There will be disagreement too, but there are ways to respectfully disagree without a fight to the death or getting personal. It isn't easy but it is worth the effort.
The point I would make is that there needs to be a mechanism to bring this discussion to a wider audience to reach agreement across the organization, to get concensus.
I suggest it happen at the dojo level where everyone is involved in an open discussion. There are lots of ways to do it but thinking it cannot be done is a barrier in itself. That's an attitude and as long as it's there, it's a problem. Not addressing concerns or minimizing concerns is a barrier. So, get someone to make an action list of all items. The biggest barrier to me is getting everyone involved, having people speak their mind (particularly when they disagree) with a 'power' figure present, perhaps a doubting senior. But that means seniors bear a greater responsibility to make it work and be aware and remove or 'loose' their instinct to control. This kind of discussion can change behavior for the better if it is allowed.
People who do not think it can be done should be encouraged to list the barriers and others asked to suggest alternatives. There are lots of ways to get action and agreement, to convert the skeptics and change behavior. Come up with a list of ideas and start with an easy one to start with. Use reason and deliberate, open discussion to all, minimize closed discussion, be inclusive and fight the tendency to shut out ideas.
It takes work but the point is, it does work and it's a very powerful engine of change.
Keep in mind that there are some pretty bright and talented juniors out there, an incredible untapped resource. You only have to ask them to contribute and have one of their ideas come about. Remember too that this is the USA and the way a lot of people work now. A rigid system of hierarchy is passe for a lot of folks out there. Try to visualize what your dojo looks like from the outside. That's exactly the picture they'll draw for you if you let them.
[This message has been edited by Phils (edited 11-19-99).]
There are many worthy items of discussion being brought out here and plenty of good ideas to open a discussion and attempt to reach agreement. There will be disagreement too, but there are ways to respectfully disagree without a fight to the death or getting personal. It isn't easy but it is worth the effort.
The point I would make is that there needs to be a mechanism to bring this discussion to a wider audience to reach agreement across the organization, to get concensus.
I suggest it happen at the dojo level where everyone is involved in an open discussion. There are lots of ways to do it but thinking it cannot be done is a barrier in itself. That's an attitude and as long as it's there, it's a problem. Not addressing concerns or minimizing concerns is a barrier. So, get someone to make an action list of all items. The biggest barrier to me is getting everyone involved, having people speak their mind (particularly when they disagree) with a 'power' figure present, perhaps a doubting senior. But that means seniors bear a greater responsibility to make it work and be aware and remove or 'loose' their instinct to control. This kind of discussion can change behavior for the better if it is allowed.
People who do not think it can be done should be encouraged to list the barriers and others asked to suggest alternatives. There are lots of ways to get action and agreement, to convert the skeptics and change behavior. Come up with a list of ideas and start with an easy one to start with. Use reason and deliberate, open discussion to all, minimize closed discussion, be inclusive and fight the tendency to shut out ideas.
It takes work but the point is, it does work and it's a very powerful engine of change.
Keep in mind that there are some pretty bright and talented juniors out there, an incredible untapped resource. You only have to ask them to contribute and have one of their ideas come about. Remember too that this is the USA and the way a lot of people work now. A rigid system of hierarchy is passe for a lot of folks out there. Try to visualize what your dojo looks like from the outside. That's exactly the picture they'll draw for you if you let them.
[This message has been edited by Phils (edited 11-19-99).]
