Disabled students as black belts

[TrueJim]

[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1708613, member: 17506]What TrueJim has created is an either/or situation.[/QUOTE]

But that's because it is an either/or situation.

• Either you have a common standard for everybody, or varying standards by individual
• If it's a common standard for everybody, you either make it a high standard, or something lower than that

[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1708613, member: 17506]You either have high standards or you have low standards.[/QUOTE]

Nobody has even mentioned low standards. What I said was, you either make the standard to be high, or you pick a standard that's somewhat lower.

[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1708613, member: 17506]The third option is somewhat illusory, because it's essentially no standards. When you create a unique set of standards for each person, it's no longer a standard at all.[/QUOTE]

I understand your point, but I don't think it's true. As an analogy, if I were coaching a track team, I could say that everybody has to decrease their track time by 10% by the end of the season. That's still a standard, even though the track time goal would vary depending on the individual.

You can do the same thing in martial arts. Assess where a person is, assess where they could be, and assign merit based on how much they've improved. That's still a standard, just like 10% speed increases would be a standard.

[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1708613, member: 17506]As a quick aside, when you frame the situation up as TrueJim has done, you are creating a red herring (and also a false dilemma).[/QUOTE]

That's just not true. It's not a false dilemma: it's a real, actual dilemma. Should we set a standard so high that only a few could ever meet it? Do we set it somewhere lower than that, so that more people can meet it? Or do we vary the standard to reflect the potential of the student? That's not a false dilemma. It's a real honest-to-goodness dilemma. If it weren't, there wouldn't be 8 pages of discussion in this thread. It's the fact that it's a dilemma that makes this an interesting discussion!

[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1708613, member: 17506]For what that's worth, it's technically illogical for at least two reasons.[/QUOTE]

What two reasons?

[QUOTE="Steve, post: 1708613, member: 17506]Where the standards are arbitrary, they become meaningless. Where they are consistently applied, they are meaningful.[/QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree with you on both points. (1) arbitrary standards are meaningless, and (2) standards are meaningful only when applied consistently.

But there's nothing arbitrary about saying "decrease your running time by 10%" and there's nothing inconsistent about saying, "and that applies to everybody on the track team." If you can use a standard like that for track & field, or swimming, or just about any other individual sport, there's no reason one can't use it for martial arts as well. And if you can use it for martial arts, then you can use it for disabled people in martial arts.

 

[Steve]

I wholeheartedly agree with you on both points. (1) arbitrary standards are meaningless, and (2) standards are meaningful only when applied consistently.

But there's nothing arbitrary about saying "decrease your running time by 10%" and there's nothing inconsistent about saying, "and that applies to everybody on the track team." If you can use a standard like that for track & field, or swimming, or just about any other individual sport, there's no reason one can't use it for martial arts as well. And if you can use it for martial arts, then you can use it for disabled people in martial arts.

I had responded to the rest, but in the interest of trying to stem off anything that seems confrontational, I'll snip it to this part. This gives me hope, because what you are syaing here fully supports my position throughout this thread. Standards and measures. Seriously. Go back and read through my posts. You seem to think you're disagreeing with me, but when you provide an example of what you mean, it's perfectly aligned with what I've been saying all along.

10% decrease in running time is a great example of a standard that can be both applied consistently and without compromise AND measured individually with room for accommodation for mental or physical impairments.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

10% decrease in running time is a great example of a standard that can be both applied consistently and without compromise AND measured individually with room for accommodation for mental or physical impairments.

That leads to sandbagging IMO. Don't try hard, then slowly ramp up a little.

I joined the military after high school, and I found out one guy was a competitive 10 km runner. I was surprised because he would only finish slightly ahead of me, and I had never really trained. He said, "oh, I don't try. So long as I come in first, they can't say anything. If I were to try, it would ruin my real workout in the evening with the track club." Sandbagging in action!

 

[TrueJim]

That leads to sandbagging IMO.

I think the bottom line is, there is no perfect way to do this. All you can do is choose the lesser of evils.

• You can set a high standard that only athletic and relatively youthful adults can reach, in which case most of your other students will never reach black belt
  
  
• You can set a somewhat lower standard that less-fit people can reach, in which case your very-fit students will never be challenged
  
  
• You can vary the standard based on the potential of the student, in which case yes...some students could try to sandbag you

Any one of these approaches has its own set of problems..that's what makes this a dilemma. At least in the case of sandbagging you as an instructor have the opportunity to mitigate the problem by trying to learn over time what your students are really capable of. I would argue that it's more difficult for an instructor to mitigate the disadvantages of the first and second approaches: If you set too high a standard, ultimately you'll reach very few students...how does one mitigate that? If you set too low a standard, you'll fail to reach your most talented students...how does one mitigate that? At least by varying the standard, you have the potential to challenge all your students, and at least you as an instructor have the opportunity to deal on a case-by-case basis with the sandbaggers.

 

[Steve]

I think the bottom line is, there is no perfect way to do this. All you can do is choose the lesser of evils.

• You can set a high standard that only athletic and relatively youthful adults can reach, in which case most of your other students will never reach black belt
  
  
• You can set a somewhat lower standard that less-fit people can reach, in which case your very-fit students will never be challenged
  
  
• You can vary the standard based on the potential of the student, in which case yes...some students could try to sandbag you

Any one of these approaches has its own set of problems..that's what makes this a dilemma. At least in the case of sandbagging you as an instructor have the opportunity to mitigate the problem by trying to learn over time what your students are really capable of. I would argue that it's more difficult for an instructor to mitigate the disadvantages of the first and second approaches: If you set too high a standard, ultimately you'll reach very few students...how does one mitigate that? If you set too low a standard, you'll fail to reach your most talented students...how does one mitigate that? At least by varying the standard, you have the potential to challenge all your students, and at least you as an instructor have the opportunity to deal on a case-by-case basis with the sandbaggers.

LOL. There's always option 4.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

My option 4 is different than your option 4, and it's the option I took for myself: let the student decide for himself / herself when he / she is "blackbelt" quality and ready to test.

Personally, my goal before getting to BB was:
1) to be comfortable doing kicks as difficult as tornado and spinning hook kicks, and doing them fluidly and without losing balance, and
2) not having flexibility issues in my left leg (due to injury) such that I could do crescent and axe kicks with my left leg.

Since I wasn't there, I declined my previous school's offer / request to test.

I'm now at the level but have declined BB testing for a few reason. First, I know how good and bad I am, and don't need a belt to reassure me. Second, I like my $300-600 in my pocket. Third, with BB being more a matter of time and effort than ability, there are many so-so BB's, and hence the belt doesn't mean much to me. And finally, my poomsae is less than impressive but passable, and I would be told I need to get better and practice every day; I am about to move, and about to get a new job, so my TKD time is lower priority. Consequently I have declined my current school's offer to test, but may purse testing in a few months just for the portability of a BB rank.

 

[K-man]

So you're saying this: "A black belt doesn't mean that you can do X, but it does mean that once upon a time you could do X." Furthermore, if a person has a disability that prevents them from ever being able to do X, they should never receive a black belt.

Not at all. You are twisting words to fit your version of events. Certainly a black belt could mean you could do X and if X is the grading requirement of a particular style then if you can't perform X you don't receive a black belt, disability or not. So training that style, knowing the requirement, and knowing that you can't ever hope to achieve that requirement, and expecting to be awarded a black belt for trying, is just plain stupid. Normally a person would choose a system where he could achieve the level to which he aspires.

So then I suppose the question becomes...what should X be? If we make X be something that only very athletic young men and women can do (i.e., requiring a very high standard of athleticism), then a black belt essentially winds up meaning two things: (1) you've worked very hard for a long time, but also (2) you are young and athletic (or at least you were back when you got your black belt).

Again, totally out of context. I was 64 when I gained my black belt in aikido. I am neither young or athletic, and I did work hard for a reasonably long time. If instead of starting Aikido, I had decided I wanted to learn, say, TKD and represent my country in the Olympics, I would be dreaming. Do you think the selection committee would include me in the TKD team just for trying my best? Come on, time for a reality check.

If on the other hand we make X be something that even young teens and older adults -- or even disabled people -- can do (i.e., requiring a lower level of athleticism), then the black belt means only one thing: (1) you've worked very hard.

And it would, in the context of martial arts, mean nothing. I am probably still fit enough to roll and potentially take up BJJ. Whether I could last the ten years or so to get to black belt is a valid concern. I would not be asking for any dispensation for my age. I would succeed or fail on my ability and if I didn't get to black belt so be it. I certainly wouldn't expect someone to say, "Mate you really are too old for this but you've given it your best shot. Here's a black belt for trying." That cheapens it for everyone.

Personally, to me, it seems entirely random to encumber the meaning of the black belt to include the second thing: that you were young and athletic with no disabilities back when you get your black belt. Unless one is subscribing to a very Hollywood definition of black belt, why should one's stage in life and physical impairments be part of the definition? It seems to me that the years of effort and level of hard-work put-in is much closer to a good definition of being a martial artist.

There is a huge difference between being a martial artist and achieving the level of black belt. You can put in years of hard work and never get to that level. Perhaps my most diligent student, a man who started karate at 62, will never get his black belt. I will not promote him beyond the level of his ability. He knows that and understands why. He is a good martial artist and he has put in years of hard work. If I promote him beyond his ability there is then a greater expectation on him from others and that could even lead to injury and him giving his training away, something I don't want to happen.

This is exactly what I am talking about. These guys are demonstrating their ability to match it with the best. More strength to their arm. They deserve everything they have achieved. They are doing what they do despite disability, not asking for a sympathy vote.

 

[Blindside]

In my old kenpo school the blackbelt was an instructor, the student had to be able to remember, understand, demonstrate, and teach the material. If they couldn't do that, they couldn't be a black belt. We had an older student who just couldn't retain the material for whatever reason, she certainly tried hard but at some point after lots and lots and lots of work with many different instructors in the school we still didn't test her. My instructors comment was "sometimes desire isn't enough." It wasn't a perfect scale, I would drive a talented student harder and expect more of him/her than a less talented student because I knew they had the capability. But there was still the minimum standard they had to reach, don't reach it, no next belt.

As a kali instructor we don't have a visible rank structure, and my first promotion in the system was to something like "apprentice instructor" which I think is equivalent to a black belt in many systems, and I have retained that tradition with my students, we don't do rank until you start becoming an instructor. I have one student now who timewise is in the same experience level as a couple of guy who should be ramping up for that first instructor rank. Great student, nice guy, great attitude, but the most uncoordinated guy I have ever trained. He may never be an instructor (and I hope he proves me wrong), but again, "desire is not enough." If I had a student who was disabled in some way that prevented him from attaining my standards for that "apprentice instructor" I would hope that they can see why. If I lowered the standard and promoted the disabled student over my uncoordinated student, would that be fair? I don't think so.

 

[IcemanSK]

It's pretty apparent that the majority of folks who have responded to this thread have very little experience neither teaching students with disabilities, nor actually having a disability, so it has become (once again) a never-ending discussion on "what is your standard for black belt" and/or "my way of thinking about black belt is better than your's." It's completely understandable. If you have no experience with it, you're going to veer off into either speculation, or find a more comfortable vague part of the topic that is more comfortable for you.

For those of you who don't know me, let me introduce myself. I'm in my late 40's,I've trained Taekwondo, Western boxing & full-contact rules kickboxing since 1982, and I have a relatively mild case of Cerebral Palsy (CP) that affects the right side of my body. To give you an understanding of my disability, I have much weaker muscles in my right arm and hand. I cannot make an effective knife-hand motion with my right hand. I also cannot pull back the toes of my right foot, and I walk with a limp. I have trained alongside several members of this forum ( Miles, MSUTKD, ArchTKD, DOrtiz, and Master Earl Weiss, to name a few) they can attest to both my abilities and disabilities on the mat. Among MA-ists, I stand out because of my disability. Among people with CP, I stand out because of my ability. I have run my own dojang for the past 10 years. I teach students both with and without disabilities. I've had more students without disabilities than with, but I'm comfortable teaching both.

I started under a Korean master in a time when MA schools would not have thought of teaching, let alone marketing classes toward students with disabilities. I started class with my very athletic friend, and I was treated no differently than he was by our master or the other students. Expectations were high, but appreciation and understanding were part of my master's teaching. Before you decide what that might mean, let me give you an example. I was not as physically gifted as my buddy, but he couldn't remember Korean terminology for belt tests to save his life. Exceptions were made for his inability because he had a nice round kick for a yellow belt. With every belt test I had, more was expected of me by my master. If everyone else at my rank broke a board with one technique, I was required to break an additional board with an additional technique. I did the same push-up requirements as the others (it just took longer). Few masters would have been as patient as mine was. By this thread, I can clearly see that is still the case.

When teaching students (disabled or not) every instructor makes allowances, works around issues, etc. with students, otherwise they won't be in business very long. And each one of us can look to a 17 year old student who has been with us a few years who's side kick (front kick, or whatever) is better than our's is currently (if we are honest with ourselves). So, the argument of a standard that is set in stone goes out the window quickly. Let's not kid ourselves into believing anything else.

To answer the OP, yes, one can achieve BB with a disability. However, I'd also say that BB isn't for every disabled student, any more than it is for every able-bodied student. Things such as maturity, and effort the student puts forth are factors to consider when testing a student with a disability, as well as the able-bodied. A friend taught TKD in an organization mainly for people with disabilities, but he also had many able-bodied folks. For the folks with mental disabilities, he devised a belt system (with a white stripe through the center of the belt) just for them. Things like head contact & aggressiveness were closely monitored. Most stayed at whatever rank for a long time (often due to struggling with new material, like Poomsae). He never tested any of those folks for BB, because no one stayed long enough before moving on to something else (or the found their comfort level at a certain rank.)

The WTF has a para-TKD program that serves mainly amputees. Folks with physical disabilities (like CP) or mental disabilities are not part of that program, yet.

If a student with a disability comes into to your dojang take a chance; not just on them but yourself. Learn about their issues. Learn about what the student does in school. Be a part of their IEP, if they have one. They might help you to REALLY look at what you teach in a new way.

GM Jae Kyu LEE is a very well respected TKD master from the Milwaukee, WI area. Evan is his student (bellow). My guess is that GM LEE learned to see TKD in a way as he teaches Evan.

 

[TrueJim]

When teaching students (disabled or not) every instructor makes allowances, works around issues, etc. with students, otherwise they won't be in business very long.

Be careful, you're about to incur the wrath of those who think that martial arts should not be sullied by the vulgar worldliness of staying in business.

But seriously...even it's not a business...even if it's just a local club...your point is well taken. You're not going to remain together as a club very long either if you're not making allowances and working around issues.

So, the argument of a standard that is set in stone goes out the window quickly. Let's not kid ourselves into believing anything else.

I was thinking the same thing myself a couple pages back. As much as some folks may say, "We use a universal standard in my school!" I'm not sure I even believe that. It's human nature to think (for example), "Well, that wasn't a great break, but I know he's still recovering from an injury, so we'll cut him some slack there, especially since his sparring is so good" ...that sort of thing. I think a lot of people -- even those who aspire to a universal standard -- make those kinds of mental calculations all the time when evaluating performances. I could be wrong; it's just a guess. But yah...internally I was using the same words you used: we're probably kidding ourselves if we believe we're applying our universal standard consistently.


Also, one thing I've noticed elsewhere in the past is that when folks say "We should maintain a reasonably high standard," what that often translate into is: "the standard should be high enough so that it's challenging for me, but no higher, and certainly no lower." If it were lower, they'd moan, "Oh, we've lost our standards...we've become a belt mill!" If it were higher, they would argue, "That standard is unreasonable! Normal people can't do that!" It's a stunningly provincial mindset; it's like they're saying, "My amount of potential is what's normal for a human, so gear the standard to me, because I'm the norm."

 

[Buka]

I read every post. Hell of an interesting thread.

I'm glad there's no universal board determining exactly what a Black Belt should be. Although if all of us here made up that board it would probably be all puppies and ice cream.

I've only had one disabled student in all the years I've taught. (Amputee an inch below the knee.)
Trained with us for five or six years, so I really don't have the experience to comment on the thread as he stopped training as a green belt.

I'm glad there's so many Martial arts schools in the world. Options for everyone is a pretty good idea.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I think setting and maintaining standards is good. And important.
I'm also a big fan of the statement "they're guidlines, not rules".
We have a student who is Chodanbo at the age of 61. We have another who is 1st geup at the age of 72. We have a younger, 2nd geup student with fetal alcohol syndrome who is bipolar. And we have plenty of students who are what society would consider "normal"

I don't see any reason not to expect all of them to reach 1st Dan, if they stick with their training.

 

[TrueJim]

While we're on the topic of interesting students...

We have one student at one of our sister-schools in our local chain, he got his 1st Dan when he was in his early 30s. Now after a long break, a few years ago he started up with taekwondo again, and just a while back got his 2nd Dan....at age 77!

 

[The_Awesome_User]

belts should be based off of ability. If they are not they lose their meaning. It leads to more and more exceptions and weak black belts until almost everyone will get one. I have seen it happen before. It gives taekwondo a bad name. That being said I know of disabled people who deserve their black belts. But if you wouldn't have given them a black belt if you didn't know they were disabled then you should not change your Standerds. What if jobs started promoting people because they were disabled?

 

[K-man]

belts should be based off of ability. If they are not they lose their meaning. It leads to more and more exceptions and weak black belts until almost everyone will get one. I have seen it happen before. It gives taekwondo a bad name. That being said I know of disabled people who deserve their black belts. But if you wouldn't have given them a black belt if you didn't know they were disabled then you should not change your Standerds. What if jobs started promoting people because they were disabled?

I think you are missing the point. It depends on the disability. Buka had a student who was a below knee amputee and I trained with one also. Despite his disability he was bloody good at his karate. His disability didn't diminish his performance. When you look at the para TKD guys, they were awesome. They were also very effective in what they were doing.

Now you query whether they would get their black belt if you didn't know they were disabled. Well, should a person without legs be able to hold a drivers licence? By that definition, no, because he can't operate the vehicle. Modify the vehicle and that person could be equal to the best driver anywhere. So I agree, we don't want to drop standards but where people with disabilities work around those disabilities to demonstrate a similar level of competence, they should be able to achieve black belt status ... which is, what I hope, you were trying to say.

 

[The_Awesome_User]

I think you are missing the point. It depends on the disability. Buka had a student who was a below knee amputee and I trained with one also. Despite his disability he was bloody good at his karate. His disability didn't diminish his performance. When you look at the para TKD guys, they were awesome. They were also very effective in what they were doing.

Now you query whether they would get their black belt if you didn't know they were disabled. Well, should a person without legs be able to hold a drivers licence? By that definition, no, because he can't operate the vehicle. Modify the vehicle and that person could be equal to the best driver anywhere. So I agree, we don't want to drop standards but where people with disabilities work around those disabilities to demonstrate a similar level of competence, they should be able to achieve black belt status ... which is, what I hope, you were trying to say.

This is what I said. People who are good inspite of their disability get black belts. But They have to hold up the standerds like everyone else.

 

[Steve]

I think you are missing the point. It depends on the disability. Buka had a student who was a below knee amputee and I trained with one also. Despite his disability he was bloody good at his karate. His disability didn't diminish his performance. When you look at the para TKD guys, they were awesome. They were also very effective in what they were doing.

Now you query whether they would get their black belt if you didn't know they were disabled. Well, should a person without legs be able to hold a drivers licence? By that definition, no, because he can't operate the vehicle. Modify the vehicle and that person could be equal to the best driver anywhere. So I agree, we don't want to drop standards but where people with disabilities work around those disabilities to demonstrate a similar level of competence, they should be able to achieve black belt status ... which is, what I hope, you were trying to say.

Excellent post, K-man. The example of driving is perfect. Can a person without legs drive a typical car? No, because he/she can't reach the pedals. But is pushing pedals the goal? No. Driving safely is the goal. Right? While you might not be able to give a person without legs a way to push a gas pedal, you can enable a person to drive without their feet. And driving safely is the goal.

Conversely, there are physical limitations that can't be overcome. A person who is totally blind may not ever be able to drive.

 

[K-man]

Conversely, there are physical limitations that can't be overcome. A person who is totally blind may not ever be able to drive.

Even that is changing with current technology.

 

[Steve]

Just to get back to TrueJim's points earlier. The analogy of driving is a good one. Driving safely is a static and immutable standard. We don't want and can't have people we know are a danger to themselves or others operating at high speed a piece of metal that weighs a few thousand pounds. The standard is fixed and doesn't change for anyone.

But what can change is how we creatively approach the standard to enable the individual to succeed regardless of physical or mental impairment. Provided we don't confuse the standard with how we measure the standard, we have room to be creative. In other words, it would be easy to go as far as to say, "You don't have feet, so you can't drive." And that's it. This is discriminatory and unnecessary. This is the equivalent to True Jim's Option A. Fixed and rigid.

Option B is to lower the standards for everyone. LIke saying, "Because he can't drive safely without legs, we won't require anyone to demosntrate that they can drive safely. Licenses all around." Clearly not a good option.

TrueJim's option C (as stated, although I really think based upon his examples he intends more Option d): "You don't have feet, so you can't drive well. But because you're disabled, I'll give you a drivers license anyway." Dangerous (in this case) and condescending. Making an exception.

Option D: A fourth (and best option, IMO) is to identify the actual core expectations and be open to measuring success against those standards creatively. "You can't drive a typical car, but you can drive a specially modified car safely. When you are in a specially modified car, you meet the standard and can, therefore, receive a license."



There is a lot of application here to how martial arts schools approach their curriculums.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

Even that is changing with current technology.

I saw a video about 25 years ago of this guy, born without arms due to thalidomide, driving a car: one foot on the gas, and one foot on the wheel. See from about 0:30 - 1:30. I was very impressed how with practice a lot of challenges / tasks can be overcome.