Should the Govt. License MA Instructors?

[Bill Mattocks]

While I agree with you, this creates another level of state, county, or municiple bureaucracy that must be paid for by tax dollars. Or it places the duty into the hands of an existing bureaucracy.

Which is part of the reason I tend to oppose licensing or regulation of people or businesses unless it serves a well-defined public need.

The two examples I've been able to find so far show examples of both. The registration required in NH seems to be aimed at protecting the consumer from shady operators that play silly buggers with contracts. The Connecticut law seems more concerned with public safety.

In either case, you'll have licensing standards being made by people who really don't have the qualifications to do so. What criteria would you use?

Is the building licensed?

Is the owner licensed?

Do the individual instructors need to be licensed?

If yes to that last one, then

Is it merely license saying that the state is aware that you're teaching some sort of MA or...

Would a class be required, along with a requisite test (like the driver's license).

Is there a minimum age?

Is there a maximum age?

Would only certain arts be recognized?

That last question would be my biggest concern.

Typically, such licensing is not undertaken without public input, and often, with the assistance and guidance of advisory boards made up of professionals from the community of professionals to be licensed.

One benefit that a license gives is this - regardless of what the basis for licensing might be - if a license is required to operate, then there is a legal way to shut down dangerous or unethical operators, based on a license review board.

Others have mentioned in this thread that the 'bad guys' are well-known or soon makes themselves known. True - and most of us know of the McDojo's and belt factories, etc. Some of us have even heard horror stories of instructors who like the young ladies in the class a bit too much, etc. It happens. It's great that they are identified - BUT THEN WHAT?

Without licensing, if no crime has been committed, it may be next to impossible to get such a business shut down.

Again, my first criteria for deciding whether I am in favor of government intervention in any aspect of my life is whether or not there is a problem that needs fixing. My second question is whether or not the proposed solution can fix the problem if there is one. If the answer to either one is 'no', then I'm not in favor of licensing. If the answer is 'yes', then I suspect ways can be found that are not unfair to the martial arts community and yet which protect the public interest. We've been doing it for years - without breaking the public budget or unfairly limiting business, with a variety of professions. It can be done - the only question is should it be done - in my opinion.

 

[Carol]

Take a look at this thread that debates what Province of Ontario is doing. This is perhaps closer to the kind of martial arts regulation (I'm avoiding the term "licensing" because its too specific) that would turn up here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70367

 

[JadeDragon3]

Hell no they shouldn't be allowed license us martial art teachers. First off how in the world could the government verify a person's credentials? Secondly, what does the government know about martial arts? If the gov. were allowed to license martial art teachers then what would be next?where would it end? This would give the government an excuse to tell you how to run your school and possibly tell you how much to charge.

On a side note, here in some states you do not have to register a gun with the government. All you have to do is pass a background check unless you buy the gun off an individual (which is perfectly legal).

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Take a look at this thread that debates what Province of Ontario is doing. This is perhaps closer to the kind of martial arts regulation (I'm avoiding the term "licensing" because its too specific) that would turn up here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70367

Actually, MMA tournaments are a very good illustration.

Most states in the USA allow boxing competitions, but nearly all license and heavily regulate it. MMA is new, and most states were not set up to deal with it. For a decade or so, it was kind of 'under the radar,' but now MMA is going mainstream. In just the past few months, Michigan has approved licensing MMA competitions like they do boxing, and SC is poised to do so. It is happening all over the US.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

First off how in the world could the government verify a person's credentials?

Would they have to? I can get a license to drive a car, but I don't have to prove I took Driver's Education.

Secondly, what does the government know about martial arts?

Again, what does the government have to know about martial arts? When they license a barber, do they tell him what kind of comb he can use, or how long his scissor cut must be and at what angle?

If the gov. were allowed to license martial art teachers then what would be next?

Why does that matter? One of the purposes of state and local governments is to serve the public interest. Provide schools, protect the citizenry, and so on.

where would it end?

Seriously, you should take a look at your own state's list of licensed professions. It's probably not all that big - most professions don't pose a public safety risk if done improperly and are not licensed. They've been doing this for a very long time and the list hasn't been exploding.

This would give the government an excuse to tell you how to run your school and possibly tell you how much to charge.

Does it give the government the right to tell a barber how to cut hair or how much to charge?

What such a license MIGHT do could include:

* Making sure a martial arts instructor was trained in first aid.
* Making sure a martial arts center had liability insurance.
* Making sure a martial arts center had first-aid equipment.
* Making sure a martial arts instructor did not have a criminal background.

Are these bad things? How can they be ensured if NOT by licensing?

 

[JadeDragon3]

Would they have to? I can get a license to drive a car, but I don't have to prove I took Driver's Education.

Again, what does the government have to know about martial arts? When they license a barber, do they tell him what kind of comb he can use, or how long his scissor cut must be and at what angle?

Why does that matter? One of the purposes of state and local governments is to serve the public interest. Provide schools, protect the citizenry, and so on.

Seriously, you should take a look at your own state's list of licensed professions. It's probably not all that big - most professions don't pose a public safety risk if done improperly and are not licensed. They've been doing this for a very long time and the list hasn't been exploding.

Does it give the government the right to tell a barber how to cut hair or how much to charge?

What such a license MIGHT do could include:

* Making sure a martial arts instructor was trained in first aid.
* Making sure a martial arts center had liability insurance.
* Making sure a martial arts center had first-aid equipment.
* Making sure a martial arts instructor did not have a criminal background.

Are these bad things? How can they be ensured if NOT by licensing?

I just don't think that the government has any reason getting into the martial art licensing business. My school didn't have a lot of first aid stuff and I'm pretty sure my teacher was not CPR certified BUT he was and still is an excellent teacher. That should not stop him from teaching kung fu. Alot of martial art gyms are pretty primative meaning they are not state of the art gyms. Does the government have a right to mandate things like being certified in first aid, etc..... What else would they mandate.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yes, it is. I mentioned a few posts previous that I thought a more appropriate question was "Should state or local governments license (not regulate) martial arts instruction?"

I am not, as I said, in favor of licensing at all at this time. However, I wanted to correct some of what appeared to be radical misunderstandings about professional licensing systems. I'm paranoid - but some of the response I've read are, in my opinion, way out there in terms of fearing Big Brother.

My point was, and is, that lots of professions are licensed. Usually at the state or local levels, and most are set up in the interest of public safety. They're not about 'big government' or power over people, more about protecting the community from the unscrupulous, unqualified, or dangerous.

Not every profession needs to be licensed, and I agree that martial arts is one that probably does not (at this time). But it can be done, it can be done effectively, and when it is done, it isn't the horror-show government takeover or boondoggle it seems some folks here fear.

Having once worked for a Government office that had professional licensing as one of its departments I will say in some cases, (many actually) it is a good idea. However the problem is that the people deciding what is necessary for a license don't always have much or any experience in the area they are making the requirements for. And yet in other cases it is simply another way for the state to take more money from its citizens.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I just don't think that the government has any reason getting into the martial art licensing business.

I agree, and I don't think the government has any reason to get into ANY licensing - unless it serves a compelling public interest. That's what the purpose of such licensing is supposed to be. Therefore, I would ask if there is such a compelling public interest - if not, then not.

My school didn't have a lot of first aid stuff and I'm pretty sure my teacher was not CPR certified BUT he was and still is an excellent teacher. That should not stop him from teaching kung fu.

I am not sure how licensing that required him to become certified in first aid and to have first aid equipment onsite would stop him from teaching, unless you're arguing that he's not capable of learning first aid? :angel:

Alot of martial art gyms are pretty primative meaning they are not state of the art gyms. Does the government have a right to mandate things like being certified in first aid, etc.....

I don't know, I used that as an example. Restaurants are usually required to have smoke hoods over grills - it serves a public safety need.

What else would they mandate.

What else have you got?

No, seriously, I am just playing devil's advocate here, but hopefully in a gentle way, trying to see both sides.

None of us want idiots who learn martial arts from a DVD and then open up a dojo to do things like that, do we? It's dangerous to students - both in terms of dangerous training techniques they might receive as well as in terms of giving them a false sense of confidence that they can meet self defense challenges safely, when in fact they may know essentially nothing of any use in a crisis. It damages the reputation of martial arts in general, and it even dilutes the value of a product - if you want to look at the sales side of it - in the eyes of the public. To some, if a McDojo can promise a black belt in so many months for so much money, if your dojo takes longer and costs more - you lose. That may not matter to you - but it does to some traditional style senseis, I've heard them talk about it.

As things stand now, when martial arts are unlicensed, there is no real way to shut down such dangerous operations. Even if someone gets hurt - they can sue, but the dojo can go right on doing what it's doing. Or the bad instructor pops up somewhere else. Etc.

The one good thing a licensing scheme would be able to do - if used properly - would be to shut down the dangerous operators. Is that worth the government intervention into what otherwise is a 'wild west, ya'll come' profession? I don't think so at the moment, but I'm open to discussion on the matter.

 

[JadeDragon3]

If martial art teachers have to be licensed to teach then what keeps the gov. from telling you what you can charge to teach and/or what times you can be open, etc.... where do you draw the line?

 

[Sandstorm]

I feel the point is being missed here. The Government doesn't get involved. It's all down to associations created to enforce and certify. The government has nothing to do with it. Sure, they may tax the associations based on revenue, but that's it as far as I'm aware.
The associations have boards/panels of recognised and respected individuals with a variety of MA experience, and they are the ones who say yes or no to intstructors based on their qualifications/character etc etc.
Sure, you can argue that these associations could be manufactured by anyone, but come, do you really think so? I mean, you get enough legitimate people behind one association, then another, then another, and you are on the way to covering most arts, if not all.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If martial art teachers have to be licensed to teach then what keeps the gov. from telling you what you can charge to teach and/or what times you can be open, etc.... where do you draw the line?

Barbers are licensed and they are not told how to cut hair, what times they can be open, or what to charge.

I don't think there is a line there to be drawn.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I feel the point is being missed here. The Government doesn't get involved. It's all down to associations created to enforce and certify. The government has nothing to do with it. Sure, they may tax the associations based on revenue, but that's it as far as I'm aware.
The associations have boards/panels of recognised and respected individuals with a variety of MA experience, and they are the ones who say yes or no to intstructors based on their qualifications/character etc etc.
Sure, you can argue that these associations could be manufactured by anyone, but come, do you really think so? I mean, you get enough legitimate people behind one association, then another, then another, and you are on the way to covering most arts, if not all.

Which association, name 2 that agree on all points and there are a multitude of association in the US that are simply belt factories and again the majority of CMA teachers in the US belong to NO association what-so-ever.

I once had a guy at a Judo school ask me to teach Taiji there and possible Long Fist later but I needed to be a member of his association for insurance coverage. Explain to me what the heck a Judo association knows about Taiji, Long Fist or any CMA for that matter. I did not take the job.

Again we are right back to, as far as CMA is concerned, most of the legitamate teachers will quit teaching and the charlatans will have big schools that make tons of money and TCMA will be dead.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I feel the point is being missed here. The Government doesn't get involved. It's all down to associations created to enforce and certify. The government has nothing to do with it. Sure, they may tax the associations based on revenue, but that's it as far as I'm aware.
The associations have boards/panels of recognised and respected individuals with a variety of MA experience, and they are the ones who say yes or no to intstructors based on their qualifications/character etc etc.
Sure, you can argue that these associations could be manufactured by anyone, but come, do you really think so? I mean, you get enough legitimate people behind one association, then another, then another, and you are on the way to covering most arts, if not all.

There are a LOT of martial arts associations in the US. And as far as I can tell, a whole shload of them are fake.

Most of them avoid personal damage to their brain-pans by not calling their associations by the name of a style that is known to be legitimate, but they seem to make up new 'styles' to be associations of with distressing regularity.

Possible analogy - in the US, there are several 'real' regional secondary education accrediting associations. Colleges and universities that have been licensed by these groups are called 'accredited' and the degrees they award are seen as reputable and real. Credits can be transferred to other schools, etc.

However, there are many 'accrediting associations' that are NOT one of the 'real' ones, and such colleges' degrees mean pretty much nothing. Some actually teach something - some teach nothing but are only diploma mills - but none of them are 'accredited' and no one has much respect for their degrees.

 

[Rich Parsons]

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.

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



Generally not the case.



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.



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



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.

I disagree that it is not generally the case.

In the State of New York that did try to create a license for Martial Artists, they put in the law the requirements of Rank and Years at Rank for owning a school to be able to teach at a school, and all of these were put in from the "friends" of the Representative who was proposing the "Bill".

This is the only case I know of with an Actual "Bill" in front of a State Congress.

So, could you please provide me with data to your point? Martial Art Data?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Again we are right back to, as far as CMA is concerned, most of the legitamate teachers will quit teaching and the charlatans will have big schools that make tons of money and TCMA will be dead.

Why would legitimate teachers quit rather than become licensed?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Why would legitimate teachers quit rather than become licensed?

Look into CMA history, look into Chinese Culture, look into the Duan ranking system.

And basically it just is not with the hassle. As I posted in another thread. I know of a few rather impressive Sifus that would quit because it would not be worth the time or money (they teach because they want to teach what they know and learn and make little or no money at it now) and I know a now charlatan that would be the first in line so he could make MORE money.

I could tell you about the discussion I recently had with my Yang Taiji Sifu or the comment my ex-Wing Chun Sifu made but I have no time and frankly I am already into this much further than I wanted to be.

 

[Rich Parsons]

New Hampshire currently requires that Martial Arts instruction centers be licensed:

http://doj.nh.gov/publications/nreleases2008/072408.html

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/358-S/358-S-mrg.htm

This is wrong because?

No where in either of those documents is the term License used

From the first site:

New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte announces that all health club and martial arts school owners in the State of New Hampshire are reminded to register with the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau. New Hampshire law requires that both health clubs and martial arts schools register annually and those registration statements contain important consumer safeguards.

They are reminded[/b[ not required.



And the second link is about Contracts and defining them in a legal way.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I disagree that it is not generally the case.

[note: with regard to my response to this statement:

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?


So, could you please provide me with data to your point? Martial Art Data?

I cannot, as there are very few states that I can find that currently license or register martial arts teachers or facilities.

What I can do is draw upon the history of local and state-level licensing and point out that in general, this is not the case, nor has it been. While it may be a fear of yours, and backed up by a legitimate situation such as you described, the history of local and state licensure of professionals of various sorts is overwhelming NOT one of unfairly restricting those with whom a head of licensing disagrees.

It's a 'suppose' that just has no historical basis in reality given the history of licensing of professions.

 

[Carol]

From the first site:



They are reminded[/b[ not required.

Rich, they are required. Look at the segment that you posted:

New Hampshire law requires that both health clubs and martial arts schools register annually

The AG uses the word "reminder" because...well...we are a friendly state...LOL. In all seriouslness...its because up until recently, martial arts were not considered to be "health clubs" and therefore not subject to this registration and not required to post and offer consumer information. The statement from the attorney general was another way to reinforce the information - particularly to martial arts schools that have not had to worry about such forms of legal complinance in the past.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich, they are required. Look at the segment that you posted:



The AG uses the word "reminder" because...well...we are a friendly state...LOL. In all seriouslness...its because up until recently, martial arts were not considered to be "health clubs" and therefore not subject to this registration and not required to post and offer consumer information. The statement from the attorney general was another way to reinforce the information - particularly to martial arts schools that have not had to worry about such forms of legal complinance in the past.

Carol,

The previous line of the paragraph I quoted has "reminded". The second one you brought up says Required.

As I deal with requirments every day. It is my business.

This is conflicting requirements, and I would love to spend time and the money of the system in a court having them prove to me which is the important word. Reminded or Required.

If they want to get specific they should word it with a "SHALL" to avoid confusions.