Discussion in 'Tae-Kwon-Do' started by Nikos Botsios, Aug 16, 2019.
That assumes that the community actually needs improvement...
I'll expand on this a bit.
There's a few people who moan about lack of standards and how MA isn't like it was in the old days.
There's a few people who moan about how a different organisation doesn't put enough value on who gets a black belt - it's very rarely their own org they complain about.
There's a few people who moan that anything taught as self defence doesn't deserve that title because it's "unproven".
There's a few people who complain that xyz style isn't any good because it's not effective in the ring/cage/mat/jungle/viper pit.
For the remaining 99.9999999999% of MA students who aren't vocal and don't use forums - they pretty much don't care.
How do you prove competency in a way hat has nothing to do with style specifics? Suppose your proposed theoretical governing board is set up and ten applicants come looking for certification. Each teaches a different art, let's say boxing, BJJ, Bujinkan Taijutsu, Ving Tsun, Capoeira Regional, Yang Style Tai Chi, Systema, Moo Duk Kwon, Renaissance Swordsmanship, and MMA. Who is going to be able evaluate the competency of all these different practitioners? How will they be able to do it in a way that has nothing to do with the specifics of each style? According to the standards of one style, everything in another style may be considered incorrect. Heck, even in closely related styles (like two lineages of Wing Chun/Wing Tsun/Ving Tsun) there may be profound disagreement regarding who is "competent" and what the standards for determining that are.
How would you determine "competency" in philosophy?
Some instructors/coaches may not have significant skill in performing an art themselves, but still are able to coach effectively. Some of the greatest boxing coaches of all time never boxed themselves. Would your board disqualify Angelo Dundee from being a boxing coach?
Who gets to set the standards for safety? MMA, Kyokushin Karate, Muay Thai, Dog Brothers gatherings, etc all involve significant risk of injury. In fact there is a good case to be made that there is a unavoidable trade off between safety and developing high levels of genuine fighting skill. (Thus the Dog Brothers motto of "Higher Consciousness Through Harder Contact.") Who gets to decide what is an acceptable level of risk?
What sort of building/workout area standards would you want enforced? I've trained in parks, back yards, garages, living rooms, parking lots, on mats, on hard wood floors, in beautiful studios with air conditioning, in repurposed warehouses, in tiny spaces, in huge spaces, in gyms with heavy bags, weights, boxing rings, and MMA cages, and schools with none of the above. I've never noticed any correlation between the particulars of the workout area and the quality of the instruction. (I suppose I could support a rule mandating that the mats get mopped and disinfected regularly in schools that use mats, but putting a governmental agency in place for that one rule seems like serious overkill.)
Business/advertising/marketing skills are very useful for people who want to run a for-profit commercial school. (Which many instructors don't.) However I don't know of any field where you must get certified as being good at such things before being allowed to start a business.
So lay out an explanation of how you think it might work. All you’ve really said is, there should be government oversight, it should be mandatory, standards should be regulated, and don’t worry, it will all be fine.
Explain how that is accomplished? Because I and several others have pointed out a whole bunch of problems. I don’t see it ever happening, and if it were forced into place it would be nothing but destructive to the practice of martial arts.
So for the fourth time, what is the plan? How does it work? Who gets to be a regulator? What if Ashida Kim or Frank Doux we’re appointed the Chair of the Oversight Department?
My back yard and garage, or a park, work just fine.
The thing is you seem to be mixing up with "it should never do that/i would never want it to do that" with "the government would never do that" which is always a risky mix up to make.
Funnily enough, I’m a (relatively) big-government liberal and I don’t see any way in which governmental regulation of martial arts instruction would be a good idea.
Some things absolutely need regulation. Other things absolutely should not have it.
Agreed. I could see some regulation around after-school programs for kids under a given age, perhaps. And for those of a given size, if there's any regulation for a similar-sized gym (none that I know of, but I could see some equivalency), those might be reasonable. Beyond that, I can't really see the value.
Maybe a day-care license for schools teaching young children.
Oh my gosh, no. Nobody would teach kids, then.
We looked at offering an aftercare program, and in order to get a childcare license to run an aftercare program in our state, you have to have, IIRC: a licensed childcare director (which requires a degree in early childhood education), plus one licensed childcare provider per so many children, plus your facility has to be so many square feet (25?) per student, plus you have to have separate child and adult bathrooms, plus you have to have an enclosed outdoor playground with so many square feet of grass or mulch per child (which the students are required to play on for so many hours per day), plus some other things that I can't remember. The requirements were absolutely not something that it would be reasonable to ask a martial arts school to meet.
Depends what you mean by teaching young children.
MA schools here don't do after school clubs, or homework clubs, or collection from school, or child minding... It's an MA club, not a substitute parent.
In fact, it's in the agreement at 'my' school that parents don't just ditch their kids and leave - if they're under about 9 or 10, if the parent leaves the kid goes with them.
Even so, it's expected that the instructors are background checked and have stuff like first aid training - no need to have regulations in place for that as every school I've heard about that teaches kids makes it known they have those things.
Yeah, I’m not surprised. My suggestion wasn’t exactly serious although I can see an argument for it. But when people start saying something needs regulation, better be careful it doesn’t get regulated in a way they might not like it. Careful what you wish for.
I’m sure all of that stuff does happen here, in some places. I’ve seen places talk about picking up kids from school, having homework time, etc. that’s why I think there is a valid argument for it, if people want to talk about regulating martial arts.
As @WaterGal pointed out, an actual daycare license brings all kind of regulations and obligations with it; likely martial arts schools don’t want it. As I say, be careful what you wish for.
By sheer numbers I would say that the majority of commercial schools stay financially afloat through the volume of enrollment of children. Whether or not they also provide quality instruction for adults, or if they are strictly Karotty daycare depends on the school. If they all suddenly needed a daycare license, most of all of those schools would close down.
It sounds like you are describing requirements to run a full time daycare. Not a supplemental program. I am sure it varies from state to state.
Again (and again) I cannot nor should not answer your question. It is too big for one person. Asking the same redundant question accomplishes nothing. I have heard similar questions in different venues that eventually did adopt some level of regulated standards (such as daycare that has been mentioned). It would take a collective that clearly does not exist here on this forum. That is ok. @Tony Dismukes has had the most cogent response. At least he is thinking about it. It is never wrong to come down on the other side of an issue if it is done with intelligence.
I cannot imagine it ever being the people who are extreme specialist in their MA craft. They are serving a different, very valuable purpose. I assume the people you listed are Not.
Ok well, when you start saying it is needed, then it seems you would have at least an idea of how it might be done. If you don’t have that, it’s hard to argue that it is needed.
If that is who I think it is on the near left, he was right.
Flying Crane suggested that martial arts schools be required to get childcare licenses. Where I'm at, there isn't a "supplemental" childcare license; an aftercare program is supposed to be licensed the same as a full-time daycare center. Lots of places don't actually do that and run illegal aftercare programs and just hope they don't get reported, but they're risking large fines and potentially even prison time by doing that. I wasn't comfortable with that risk, personally.
Separate names with a comma.