Should the Govt. License MA Instructors?

[Carol]

For example, as an Engineer, I am legally not allowed to work in my field without licensing or without oversight by a licensed Engineer. And EVERY person in the country should be happy about that fact. The licensing process for us, ensures that the buildings, roads, electrical systems, etc that we design are safe and correctly designed. Without this oversight, ANYONE could design a building no matter their level of knowledge.

The problem with that is, things like Engineering, Medicine, Law, all have a standard they can be tested on. Book knowlage so to speak. What standard gets set for Martial Arts, and who does the regulating?

The PE license is a state-issued license. These laws do not bar anyone from working in their field. .

What is protected is the presentation of the title of "engineer". In order to refer to oneself as an engineer to the public, which means one offers engineering services to the public, most states generally require that one is either holds a Professional Engineer license or works under the supervision of a licensed PE. Most states do not define what "working under the supervision of a PE" means. It could mean that only one person in a privately owned firm has a PE.

Licensing is more important in some disciplines than others. Civil engineers or environmental engineers are more likely to be licensed than electrical engineers.

The law also permits exemptions for certain industries...software, for example. A PE license is not required for someone to use the title of software engineer, and offer software engineering services to the public.

There is yet another exception. If the U.S. federal government, or one of the state governments defines a job with the word "engineer" in the job's official title, then that person does not need a PE license to call themselves an engineer.

Think about that for a moment. The very organization that makes the rules has exempted themselves from their own rules. That is not to say that the government cannot require a PE license when hiring (say) a civil engineer, but there is no law requiring that the person be licensed.

The PE exam also smacks of favoritism. There are very few accredited universities (if any) in the U.S. that offer a degree in "Fire Safety Engineering", for example, yet there is a PE exam for that disciplines.

I'm not trying to belittle anyone who has taken the exam (God bless you if you have), nor do I think that the PE has no value. But realistically, I do see this as an example of the positive attributes, as well as the negative attributes of such a system.

And that's in an area with readily defined metrics.

 

[chinto]

well, lets see, they tried that in Japan for a few century... did not work thank god!! I say no, and personally would doubt that instructors would comply with such a law! .. as it should be!

where as a structural engineer would endanger many innocent lives, a bad MA instructor does not. personally i think that a badinstructor will be found out rapidly. So there is NO rational to license either instructors or students!!

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Never mind.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Exactly -- the problem is defining the standards for each style. We seem to have problems coming to a consensus among ourselves what those standards are, now imagine the gov't trying to step in and standardize a martial art -- highly laughable, if it wouldn't be so disastrous.

This would be the same gov't, mind you, that's done a great job setting the standards for public school teaching in California...

States don't seem to have a problem licensing private investigators.

The standards for licensing in, say, Michigan are pretty objective, without having anything to say about 'style'.

http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,1607,7-192-29940_23422-64772--,00.html

No one said anything about "the government trying to step in and standardize a style," that I am aware of. Does the government standardize barbers? But they license them..

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The problem with that is, things like Engineering, Medicine, Law, all have a standard they can be tested on. Book knowlage so to speak. What standard gets set for Martial Arts, and who does the regulating?

I get a job as a regulator, come and watch you perform to see if you can teach. Your Tang Soo Do looks nothing like my Bujinkan, so you are doing it wrong. Sorry no licence for you. Well, the standard could be physical fitness. Wait, that guy is old. No licence for him. Those Masters are fat, none for them either...

I just don't see how it could be practical, beyond paying a "fee" (ahem tax) to be licenced... I can't see how they could set a "standard", when the Martial arts are far from.

The state of Michigan doesn't have a problem licensing auctioneers, and there is no 'physical fitness' or 'voice control' requirement. No one makes sure that all auctioneers can make that weird rapid-pitch voice.

http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-35299_35414_46937-176299--,00.html

It's even optional - auctioneers don't need to register, but if they do, they are authorized to call themselves 'registered auctioneers', which may be advantageous to their business.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

well, lets see, they tried that in Japan for a few century... did not work thank god!! I say no, and personally would doubt that instructors would comply with such a law! .. as it should be!

I am not sure what you're talking about. Banning the teaching of martial arts is not even close to the same as licensing martial arts schools/teachers. The various states license barbers - haven't been any mass barber-crackdowns that I'm aware of, or did I miss something?

where as a structural engineer would endanger many innocent lives, a bad MA instructor does not.

Um, what? You don't think that a person who is unqualified to teach martial arts in any way, could endanger the lives of their students? I mean, if I, as a white belt, simply choose to put on a black belt and open a dojo, and I taught students a bunch of BS that wont' help them, you don't think that's dangerous?

personally i think that a badinstructor will be found out rapidly.

And what? Who will stop them? Not the police, there's no law against it.

My own fellow karate-ka know of lots of black belt mills in the area. They laugh about them. They shake their heads and are dismayed - but what can they do about them? Yeah, they're out there. And no one can stop them.

So there is NO rational to license either instructors or students!!

That is the first question that has to be asked - I will grant you that. Is there any need to do so? If the answer to that question is 'no', then I agree with you. I'm not convinced, however, by your examples, that there is no danger posed by unqualified teachers.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No way, no how. The Gov. messes with our affairs enough, they need to keep their hands away from us and what we do. All it would be is another invitation to Socialism.

I think we're talking about licensing on the level of other professions here, like barbers. Not exactly Big Brother - typically run at the state level. Are barbers socialists?

We, teh MA community, are the ones who need to regulate each other by watching out for frauds. Not the Gov.

Yeah, how's that working out so far?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If my Sifu had the confidence in me to teach students 4 times a week for him for years and on one occasion I even taught students with the Grand Master sitting there quietly watching me . ( that was nerve racking ).

I was good enough for these two expert men so why should I need permission off some idiot government official who wouldn't know Wing Chun from a hole in the ground .

Because there are lots of people out there who are teaching Wing Chun who learned it from a book, or never even bothered with the book. What they teach may be dangerous to students to try to use, it might even be dangerous in the training center. I understand you are careful, thoughtful, and were carefully supervised. Is everyone? Is it bad if they are not?

 

[Grenadier]

Someone would have to be put in charge of licensing.

Suppose that there's a particular individual who is highly prejudiced against a certain type of martial arts? Would he be equally as inclined to grant licensing to arts that he favors, versus arts that he thumbs his nose at? What if you have someone who worships Ralph Gracie to the point of taking everything literally (such as when Gracie once said "Karate is Garbage" on television), and this person gets put in charge?

What kind of standards are you going to enforce?

Physical requirements? I know of many instructors who aren't in the best of physical condition, but they can certainly teach others far more effectively than some physically fit people I know. Nevertheless, if the prejudiced individual in the above example starts saying "Well, I don't want any out of shape instructors around, period" and starts refusing to grant licenses to such people, what happens to the people who could have benefitted from the training?

Technique quality? What are you going to do about instructors who have injuries and might not be able to carry out such demands, even though they are perfectly capable of teaching others how to do so? What if the person in charge of licensing doesn't understand how things are done in another system?

You can't license martial arts instructors. The only legitimate licensing is the business license, the same that any merchant would go through, if someone wants to open up a commercial school. Even then, that's pretty much automatically granted.

Let the real proof shine on its own, I'd say. It's actually relatively easy to pick out good instruction from poor instruction, and in the end, your students will be the gauge of your success or failure as an instructor. No amount of government henpecking will work.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Someone would have to be put in charge of licensing.

Typically, it's a board. Often consisting of members of that community.

Suppose that there's a particular individual who is highly prejudiced against a certain type of martial arts? Would he be equally as inclined to grant licensing to arts that he favors, versus arts that he thumbs his nose at? What if you have someone who worships Ralph Gracie to the point of taking everything literally (such as when Gracie once said "Karate is Garbage" on television), and this person gets put in charge?

Generally not the case.

What kind of standards are you going to enforce?

Physical requirements? I know of many instructors who aren't in the best of physical condition, but they can certainly teach others far more effectively than some physically fit people I know. Nevertheless, if the prejudiced individual in the above example starts saying "Well, I don't want any out of shape instructors around, period" and starts refusing to grant licenses to such people, what happens to the people who could have benefitted from the training?

Technique quality? What are you going to do about instructors who have injuries and might not be able to carry out such demands, even though they are perfectly capable of teaching others how to do so? What if the person in charge of licensing doesn't understand how things are done in another system?

How about health codes? Retaurants are licensed, but no one tests them on how authentic their "Chinese" cuisine is, for example. But they have to meet certain cleanliness standards, which means routine inspections of the facilities, and they have to carry liability insurance, etc.

You can't license martial arts instructors. The only legitimate licensing is the business license, the same that any merchant would go through, if someone wants to open up a commercial school. Even then, that's pretty much automatically granted.

Sure you can license martial arts instructors. Anything can be licensed.

Let the real proof shine on its own, I'd say. It's actually relatively easy to pick out good instruction from poor instruction, and in the end, your students will be the gauge of your success or failure as an instructor. No amount of government henpecking will work.

The problem with that is the poor student - who invests 10 years of training in a garbage system and then finds out - too bad, so sad! That their instructor learned everything from a DVD he bought over the internet and it doesn't work, which he finds out when he gets his head busted trying to defending himself against a guy who attacks him at a bar.

And so what if the 'proof shines'? If an instructor is exposed as worthless, a fraud, so what? With no system of licensing, there is no way to shut him down. He can just keep on finding new students and parents to dupe.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

The government proves its incompetence at nearly every turn. People are appointed because of party loyalty and appearance. Ideology is more important than qualification. A tax cheat is our treasurer in the midst of a major economic crisis, during which the government wants to spend more money than it ever has at one time outside of war. That pretty pathetic. We're in a war because the last president was told what he wanted to hear by his advisors. Likewise pathetic.

This is not a dig at any particular administration or party either. It just is. The Feds are completely unable to do anything without waste and inefficiency. We don't need another taxpayer supported program, particularly one that the government is completely inept to administer.

Look at the job the government did in regulating the housing market. That should answer any questions about government involvement in anything.

Daniel

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The government proves its incompetence at nearly every turn. People are appointed because of party loyalty and appearance. Ideology is more important than qualification. A tax cheat is our treasurer in the midst of a major economic crisis, during which the government wants to spend more money than it ever has at one time outside of war. That pretty pathetic. We're in a war because the last president was told what he wanted to hear by his advisors. Likewise pathetic.

This is not a dig at any particular administration or party either. It just is. The Feds are completely unable to do anything without waste and inefficiency. We don't need another taxpayer supported program, particularly one that the government is completely inept to administer.

Look at the job the government did in regulating the housing market. That should answer any questions about government involvement in anything.

Daniel

The states and counties license and regulate restaurants and barbershops. I fail to see the dire consequences you predict, and in fact, they seem to do a pretty good job.

I think people are seeing 'Big Brother' in places where he's not hanging around. Take a look at the state license of the next doctor you visit. Aren't you glad he's got one? Would you prefer he watched a doctor DVD and then operated on your bum knee?

 

[Steve]

The states and counties license and regulate restaurants and barbershops. I fail to see the dire consequences you predict, and in fact, they seem to do a pretty good job.

I think people are seeing 'Big Brother' in places where he's not hanging around. Take a look at the state license of the next doctor you visit. Aren't you glad he's got one? Would you prefer he watched a doctor DVD and then operated on your bum knee?

Bear with me, because I have a cold and am not firing on all cylinders. Hopefully this makes sense.

The difference that I see between barber students and martial arts is that a hair stylist is performing a public service in a profession with a well established curriculum. I don't know a lot about barber college, but don't you have to complete some amount of class work and then move to X number of hours of cutting hair under observation? I mean, it's well established. Right? And it's a State license, not Federal, meaning that the requirements for licensing are different from State to State. This is my understanding of it, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know all of the details.

With martial arts, there is no established curriculum. Within a style, there may be a governing body and a curriculum, but from style to style, it's like apples and oranges. I just don't see it being practical, as you can look at Style A's school and Style B's school and see very little in common.

Add to this that being a barber (and in other licensed trades, such as a Licensed Optician or Dental Assistant) is a service trade. Martial arts training is more of a hobby or fitness activity than a service.

In general, I think that each style needs to do a better job of governing its own. BJJ has the IBJJF, which records rank and establishes a uniform set of rules that forms the basis of the ruleset for all tournaments. Local tournaments don't necessarily conform to all of the IBJJF rules, but they deviate intentionally from them. It's the foundation. If you train BJJ from a black belt who is not recognized by the IBJJF, you are probably NOT training from an actual expert in BJJ. Other styles run on a similar model and I think that's adequate for most. Another example is taijutsu... if you're training in Hatsumi's style of ninjutsu, but from a "secret master" who has never "officially" trained... you're running the risk of being taken advantage of.

Now, what does sound reasonable to me (at least right now in my antihistamine fog) would be licensing and sanctioning for specific purpose. For example, where kids are involved. Teaching to kids should, in my opinion, involve a license... at the very least to provide a background check and gaurantee some instructor training on handling and educating children. We already license and sanction combat sports, so no need to go further in that. The idea being, regardless of style, that both competitors are relatively evenly matched and fighting fit.

 

[Cryozombie]

Actually here, the state doesnt "license" restaraunts, beyond the typical business license, and thats more of a tax formailty than anything. What thry do is send the health inspector to make sure the food is safe... very different than licensing a Martial Arts school. The business license part is the same, but thats already done for commercial schools... because they are commercial.

But again, Barbers and Restaraunts and Engineers, are not the same as Martial Artists. Hell, even licensing teachers is different, because there is a set of standards they can measure against.

 

[Cryozombie]

With martial arts, there is no established curriculum. Within a style, there may be a governing body and a curriculum, but from style to style, it's like apples and oranges. I just don't see it being practical, as you can look at Style A's school and Style B's school and see very little in common.

Indeed. If , for example, one looks at a combative type MMA school, and then a Point based sparring school, and uses the caveat that they are "sport arts" that point school is going to look weak and ineffectual to the average person, so should that teacher be "failed" and not be granted a license?

While I understand the IDEA is to prevent Fraud, (and boy, in the art that I study we need that) I just dont see a practical way to do it? Show your certificate? Cmon, I can whip one of those up in photoshop in about 10 minutes...

 

[Andrew Green]

No, absolutely not.

Yes, as a result of having no licensing we do get some very questionable things being taught, but we also get some brilliant and innovative things being taught as well.

To use a famous example look at Bruce Lee, chances are he would not have gotten a license. Even without regulation some of his peers tried to stop him from teaching. He bent the rules and didn't follow the "traditional" approach, he mixed styles and ideas, used no teaching methods and never "finished his training" in some peoples eyes.

I can't see anything but the same basic thing happening with regulation. The "big money" schools would end up playing the politics and games to get to the top of the review board and we would push martial arts instruction into a government enforced McDojo style

 

[Kreth]

The problem I see is that government licensing would require some sort of regulatory board. So who sits on that board? "Well, this guy has 25 successful schools, he must be an expert in the field." And BANG, the licensing decisions are being handled by a bunch of McDojo operators. No kids program, no license. No black belt club, no license. "What? You grade people when you think they're ready and not every 6 months?" No license.

 

[Sandstorm]

Right, well, I've managed to read through most of the posts in this debate, and it's really interesting to see how the majority of you feel so strongly about not having licensed instruction.

I'm astounded that it's not covered, just as you are astounded that here in the UK, it is covered.

Now, in answer to what appears to be a little confusion on how this could and does run, here in the UK we have a large number of organisations and associations with which the instructors are registered. Each association has it's board of governers with specific skills in specific arts, so certain arts will appeal to certain associations**. By having that association badge on your documents, and by being licensed to teach your art under their banner, you would have qualified and met their exacting standards. This gives both ....
A) the instructor faith in what he's teaching, as they are always on hand (the associations) to help out instructors with various courses such as first aid etc, and are behind the instructor with any legalities that may occur within his/her school/lesson etc. The association do criminal checks and references to make sure you are who you say you are and they just sit back and let you teach your art without any interference.

B) the students have faith because they know the instructor has had to pass the requirements of the association to be awarded his licence to teach. This proves the instructor is who he says he is and teaches what he says he teaches. The students are then registered to the association and their grades added through time, until they acquire their Brown or above to be able to break off and teach their own thing.

If it's a rare style, or even an art of your own, you still must go through one of the many associations until you and they are comfortable with your objectives. They will obviously see your qualities as an instructor as well as a practitioner, and if there is doubt, I would presume it is unlikely he can teach.

Remember, that most classes/clubs etc have an association badge on their advertising, so anyone can check credentials at any time.

There is no single governing body for the entire martial arts, but these associations often work together to stop fraudulent instructors from tainting the sport and potentially putting off students from ever wanting to learn.

I can see that there wil obviously be schools/instructors who have reputation and have learned their arts for many decades etc and everyone knows who they are, but what about the small towns where Joe Kickboxer sets up an academy or runs classes through a town hall? Who is to know who the hell he is and what his credentials are? He may be great. He may be the best damned instructor out there, or he may end up ripping your son's ligaments through inappropraite stretching exercises and incompetence. How do you know?

The system you have obviously works to a point. But then it hits that point, and all over the place you have these 'belt factories' which are very very rare over here.

In a way, I wish we had the same laws as you with regards to licencing, because it can be tedious making sure all your paperwork is in order if you want to do a seminar or some such. It would be nice to just advertise the event and hope people come through the door. Sounds fantastic really.

This is a really fascinating insight that I never knew anything about before. Really interesting to see how different countries operate.

Kind regards

John


**- Just check the back pages of any UK MA magazine and there are advertisements for these organisations, loads of advertisements. As opposed to the US magazines, which advertise courses or classes or DVD offers and home study courses.

 

[Woodbutcher]

Anything our government gets their hands on ultimately goes to hell in a hand basket.

The ONLY thing the government runs that works well is the postal service, but if I need something to be there beyond the shadow of a doubt...I send it UPS.

 

[Steve]

Anything our government gets their hands on ultimately goes to hell in a hand basket.

The ONLY thing the government runs that works well is the postal service, but if I need something to be there beyond the shadow of a doubt...I send it UPS.

If given the choice between Priority Mail and UPS, I will ALWAYS pick Priority Mail. It always shows up in less time for less money.

As for the regulatory thing, I'm surprised to learn that there are no belt factories in the UK. Huh... that alone might change my mind.