I originally wrote this in response to another thread, 5 year old black belts?, but I have decided it deserves a thread of it's own.
Please take these as the serious questions that they are; I am asking for clarification, not attempting to be negative about your system or your opinion.
If the test is "different" for each person, depending on his/her physical ability, then what does that do for your "standard" for black belt? I'm not saying that more athletically able people shouldn't be pushed to improve, and I'm not saying that less athletically able people shouldn't be able to earn a black belt - but if the test is different, then what is the standard that they are all demonstrating? And taking this back to the topic of the thread, could a 5 year-old then, by that same individualization, demonstrate the age/gender/size appropriate skill to be a black belt in your system?
My class tests every 3-4 months - but not every student tests. If a student is ready to test, then s/he test; if not, then s/he has to wait for the next testing cycle. Some of my best students are those who missed 1 or more testings because of lack of effort, who kept coming to class and working harder; one of my very best students is a woman who got excessively nervous, failed her first black belt test, stayed in class, and tested again, successfully.... having waited an additional 9 months for the next black belt test.
Is testing the only way student learning can be evaluated? I don't think so. Testing shows big steps - but little steps are taken, and evaluated by the instructor, every time the student comes to class. As a middle school teacher, I evaluate my students every day by watching their performance in class, looking for skills that they are improving, so I can move them up to the next level, and looking for skills that they are having difficulty with, so I can provide more in-depth instruction. As a TKD instructor, I do the same thing. Day-to-day instruction is a continual evaluation, used for formatively (to guide instruction); the actual testing is summative, used to demonstrate mastery of certain skills at certain levels, so that students can move to the next level. But there are plenty of arts where belt ranks don't exist; how do those arts keep students? And there are others where promotions are informal, in class, as the instructor decides the student is ready for the next level; how do those arts keep students? And then, too, I've met a few students who didn't want to test - they were happy where they were, getting out of the art what they wanted from it.
Please take these as the serious questions that they are; I am asking for clarification, not attempting to be negative about your system or your opinion.
The tests are the same for everyone, but weighted differently for different people. You certainly cannot expect a 45 year old woman to perform at the same level as a 22 year old athletic male.
I do agree with the idea that martial arts is a journey.
If the test is "different" for each person, depending on his/her physical ability, then what does that do for your "standard" for black belt? I'm not saying that more athletically able people shouldn't be pushed to improve, and I'm not saying that less athletically able people shouldn't be able to earn a black belt - but if the test is different, then what is the standard that they are all demonstrating? And taking this back to the topic of the thread, could a 5 year-old then, by that same individualization, demonstrate the age/gender/size appropriate skill to be a black belt in your system?
However, I also believe that if students have to wait 5 years or more to test for black belt, the motivation to improve themselves dramatically decreases. Every organization tests for higher rank. However, if you know that a testing will take place within 2-3 months, chances are you will put more time and energy into mastering the techniques and forms to be ready for testing. If testings are every 8-9 months, there is no sense of urgency and less motivation to master the techniques since you have to wait 9 months.
My class tests every 3-4 months - but not every student tests. If a student is ready to test, then s/he test; if not, then s/he has to wait for the next testing cycle. Some of my best students are those who missed 1 or more testings because of lack of effort, who kept coming to class and working harder; one of my very best students is a woman who got excessively nervous, failed her first black belt test, stayed in class, and tested again, successfully.... having waited an additional 9 months for the next black belt test.
In this sense, a Taekwondo instructor and a school teacher are similar. Both operate under a timeframe, so to speak, and if the student isn't learning eventually it comes down to how is he being taught?
Is testing the only way student learning can be evaluated? I don't think so. Testing shows big steps - but little steps are taken, and evaluated by the instructor, every time the student comes to class. As a middle school teacher, I evaluate my students every day by watching their performance in class, looking for skills that they are improving, so I can move them up to the next level, and looking for skills that they are having difficulty with, so I can provide more in-depth instruction. As a TKD instructor, I do the same thing. Day-to-day instruction is a continual evaluation, used for formatively (to guide instruction); the actual testing is summative, used to demonstrate mastery of certain skills at certain levels, so that students can move to the next level. But there are plenty of arts where belt ranks don't exist; how do those arts keep students? And there are others where promotions are informal, in class, as the instructor decides the student is ready for the next level; how do those arts keep students? And then, too, I've met a few students who didn't want to test - they were happy where they were, getting out of the art what they wanted from it.