Regulating Martial Arts Instruction

[Flying Crane]

I know, the mind recoils in horror at all the bloodletting that would be going on. I can imagine something similar in TKD, with the WTF, ITF and ATA all going at it. In a sense, you could say, well, what that shows is that the instructional federation should be syle-neutral---but yeah, how likely is that? It could happen, but only if there were some kind of crisis that forced the various approaches to unite for the sake of survival.

See, I just think that a Style Neutral organization is impossible. How can they possibly think that they can regulate a style that they know nothing about? You can't guarantee quality instructors, or establish a curriculum. You have no ability to regulate or judge a style that you don't know yourself. And just think about how many different styles there are, and how vastly different they are? How could someone with a Muay Thai background for example, who happens to be on the board of directors of a regulating agency, hope to regulate how a Tai Chi Chuan instructor does things? Or Shotokan, or Wing Chun, or White Crane, or Capoeira, or Tae Kwon Do, or Judo? And this is just the tip of the iceberg! The idea boggles the mind!

Good thoughts on this thread, by the way. It was good to bring up the idea and examples of self-regulation, good to toss these ideas around.

 

[exile]

To anyone who thinks it is somehow inevitable that the government will get involved, I would ask why do you think this? If they don't have a reason to get involved, such as excessive injuries, then they won't.

I think this is true, and I think that the only realistic model for regulation would be self-regulation along the lines we've talked about in skiing and diving.

Remember another thing: Regulation most certainly means Standardization. Creativity and innovation will be crushed. One of the things that makes the martial arts so wonderful and rich is the huge variety of different arts. And within the same art, we encounter creativity and innovation by those who are free thinkers. If Regulatory Agencies came into power, whether private or government, this creativity and innovation will be supressed. What would end up being taught would certainly be a watered down, junky version of limited value.

This is the problem with self-regulation all right. In Korea, the creation of the WTF/Kukkiwon alliance with the military government led to a homogenization of what by most accounts had been quite a lot of variation in Kwan practice and training methods. The Korean TKDocracy was strongly driven by considerations of nationalism, postwar recovery and sport rivalry.
This I believe tended to push TKD technically too far in a sport-competition-oriented direction. I don't think that would have happened under a separate-Kwan system.

Just think about Modern Wushu. This was created by the Communist Chinese governent in the 1950s, as a "national" art and sport, and the traditional fighting arts were suppressed for a long time. Sure, it can be spectacular, but its value as a martial art is really limited. The focus has changed, to be performance and competition, and flash. Impressive as an athletic endeavor, but unimpressive as a martial art. Thankfully the traditional fighting arts did go underground and were preserved, but those who did this were taking a big risk in disobeying the government.

So if Martial Arts in the US become regulated, the real stuff will just go underground and be done behind closed doors. No matter what Standardized crap is taught in a formal school, the really good stuff will be taught and practiced by a select few in the background, when nobody is looking. The real arts would survive, but they would have to go back into hiding.

Which it seems they have had to do periodically over hundreds of years in various places. The idea of regulating Capoiera... just daft.

 

[born_fighting]

i see for's and against alot here. I cast my hand in with the against. And i am from Canada, if the government got involved you would see garage dojo's poping up, underground fights and more problems then it's worth, YES it would get rid of the Mcdojo or it may Cause them all to be.. But what about peopel like me that have criminal records, who wish to have a career owning and operating the only thing there good at.. as it stands becuse i got charged with asault and battery and assult with a deadly weapon, i cant join the military , go to the usa, or leave my country for that fact. if i want to do a job i can work construction. so put the gove in there and i would be out of a job, i would pay them for the right to teach if i was alowd to.. puffff. no thanks the government can keep there hands out of my Kamono, the day the priminister earns a black belt the government can have there hands in the dojo's. thats my opinion. I don't know how it is in korea, i havent been there, but i have seen the chinese gove delve into it and they destroyed kung fu and made wushu there is no excuse for that, turn a fighting sytstem into a spectator dance sport event in silk? lol Whats with that...

 

[ajs1976]

I'm for some government regulation.
1. Require back ground checks and clearance for anyone that is teaching children
2. Require CPR and basic first aid training

As for as regulating the content, I think it would be to difficult because of the variety found in the arts themselves.

 

[EmperorOfKentukki]

Dang! I just posted this this morning and look at the thread already.

OK....it doesn't matter if I meant 'Government' or 'Private Industry' oversight. The point is....what should the oversight be....and in what form?

Several good points have been brought up...which is why I wanted this thread to happen. As for why it is here on the TKD message board.....why not? Of all the groups out there, I would have thought the TKD group would have had the most experience with this type of stuff (ergo Kukkiwon). So I see no need to jump thread to another board (unless you don't like other styles conversing here). I say....build the thread...they will come.

Maybe the way to first approach the topic is not what it should have...but what it should not.

I take it no one wants 'style' or 'art' to be an issue. I could go along with that.

I also take it no one wants a particular organization to head it up (someone brought up the failed NAPMA attempt to create a regulatory body).

Many would not want this to be a government action. OK...I tend to agree we already have too much government intervention in our lives now. My only contention is....in this instance....it probably is the lessor of the evils as government will not care about style, art or organizational affiliation. And I just don't think any particular private group has the muscle to make any program effective. Unfortunately...I think it would take at least State level licensing to enforce the requirements are met.

So what should it do? Well....in my mind....check for a minimum standard of experience. Something as simple as:

Instructor: A minimum age of 18 with no less than 936 hrs of intruction/practice experience. This would be certified by sworn statement of the ranking teacher initially, and once the system is in place, the individual school would keep such record of training on file. Once a person reaches achieves this minimum standard and seeks licensing for themselves....it would be up to them to maintain that record and present it to the licensing bureau.

Assistant instructor: A minimum age of 16 with no less than 468 hrs of instruction/practice experience (basically 1/2 of the above...also allowing for child labor laws to be met by setting the minimum age at 16).

Master Instructor: A minimum age of 25 with no less than 1040 hrs of active teaching in a period of no less than 5 years from the date of initial rating as an Instructor. (at a minimum, this would ensure the 'master' has not only practice but instruction experience teaching others. The figures are based upon a minimum of teaching 1 1hr class twice a week over a ten year period. If someone accomplishes that minimum time requirement in under the number of years....the minimum age of 25 and the 5 year minimum time requirement ensures the is a level of maturity before a person is licensed as a master instructor).

None of these requirements would prevent someone from teaching whatever style or art they want, nor would it prevent them from utilizing student workers. But it would help set a minimum standard for who could do such work and thus protect the consumer at large and benefit the greater whole of those who seek to make their living teaching martial arts.

Additionally, I really don't see it as a bad thing that all commerical teachers be required to be certified in first aid and cpr. What harm can come from making that a requirement? After all...the concept here is to give a minimal level of consumer protection and enhance the reputation of martial artist overall.

I tend to like the idea of the background check. Look...this isn't a bad thing. We would be looking for people with histories of violent crime, felonies or sex offenses. Having a speeding ticket, a DUI or getting popped for being drunk in public wouldn't be a disqualifier (just proof you are a goof). I would also include people who have active DVO's (domestic violence orders) against them. Note...I said 'active'. If you get your act together...five years down the road...you shouldn't have that held against you. But if you served time in Prison, got convicted of felony Fraud, or plead to sexual misconduct....you don't deserve the opportunity to stand in front of a group of impressionable people and parents should have the right to know if the local Karate teacher is a buggerer of little boys.

Now I know there is a concern over the licensing Fees. That is a much more difficult area to resolve. I would hope it would be something minimal such as no more than say $25 to $50 annually. I initially thought one time fee might be better, but I think there needs to be some occasional oversight of the licensee. Perhaps the license could be for 3 or 5 years with fees of say $150 to no more than $500.

So how would that fee be spend? Well...first in the production of paperwork that would be necessary for documenting the licensing. The forms could be presented to the applicant free at no charge with collected fees paying for the printing.

Who would be in charge of collecting this? Why not your local Circuit Court Clerk who already collects licensing fees for a variety of professions in your community. A portion of the fee would go to the Clerks office for processing and storing the aforemention applications.

Who would verify the documents? How about an Pugilistic Instruction Omnibusman. I personally think this should be a locally elected official who also has minimum requirements set for eligibility to run for this office. It would actually be a part time job and the fee he would be paid would come from a portion of the licensing fee mention above.

I know many of you will say...but how do we keep this Omnibudsman honest. Well....most states already have law on their books for 'malfeasance of office'. These would apply no less to this office...and a complaint would be filed with your local County Attorney if you have evidence they are not fullfilling the office according to the law.

Basically, this would be a first step in making shure the guy down the road that hangs his shingle for Dingles School of Ancient Chinese Wisdom and Death Touch is atleast checked up on. Someone at somepoint has to make a sworn statement and document his training and experience...and this will tend to keep the fruit cakes out of the field.

No...none of the above will stop you from practicing on your own....or from you teaching your buddies for free in your garage. But it wasn't intended to do that anyway. This is a way to ensure that the guy who is running the 300 kids per year through his dojang door at least gets looked at.....and knows it. The licensee will have to present valid ID to go through the process...and this information will be on file....so if their is ever a problem (like the guy who likes to feel up his female students...or the instructor who likes to take the 8 yr old boys home for 'special private lessons') there will be enoug info on file that the appropriate agency (police, social services, etc) can know who to look for and have a chance of actually finding them. None of which would be bad for our overall reputation.


OK...I've given you some specific to work with, with regard to the thoughts I've had. So what ideas do you have? What would be good? What would be bad? What could work? What couldn't?

The Emperor

 

[ajs1976]

Instructor: A minimum age of 18 with no less than 936 hrs of intruction/practice experience.

Just curious. Where did the 936 hours come from?

 

[EmperorOfKentukki]

2 hrs of class instruction/practice 3 times a week for 3 years. I know others will say they got their Black Belts in less time....but we are looking at 'Instructor Licensing' here...not what 'rank' they are. Some schools do not use 'Black Belts' or such as a measuring standard. Many Chinese Martial Art schools simply look at your total training time. In fact, such criteria is already used to place people in AAU competition.

JH

 

[EmperorOfKentukki]

I wanted to address also the points of 'Standardization' and 'Self-regulation'.

OK...standardization isn't a issue when you don't include styles or arts in the language of the licensing process. So that takes that one out of the mix.

As for self-regulation....I think we've already seen that isn't going to happen. Self regulation would entail voluntary submission to the criteria....and as we have seen on this thread already....no one is going to voluntarily do anything. That leaves it up to the various organizations to regulate. The problem with that is....we are right back in the same boat we are in now where one organization doesn't recognize what another organization is doing. The approach is wrong. It isn't about what is good for the organization...but for the consumer in general and the body politic of martial artists at large. Frankly, the State level government is the best way to go for something like this. It is large enough to ensure compliance and yet not too large so that consumer watchdogs can't ensure it doesn't become mired down in bureacracy. Bottom line is....it would take an agency with authority to take punitive action (i.e. pad locking your doors) to ensure compliance with a 'regulatory practice' where have such a great divergence and variety of interests (I.E. TKD, Karate, Kung Fu, Judo, Wu Shu, etc ad naseum). And that isn't just an opinion...it is just a fact of life.

JH

 

[Flying Crane]

I just can't get on board with this. Whatever the government touches, generally turns to ****.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Eok, I see you've put some serious thought into this.

Even with those standards, I fail to see how it would help insure the quality of MA instruction out there. I've known people who have trained for years in various styles under the auspices of various organizations who wouldn't be qualified to teach. I'm sure you do as well.

Can you give us some insight as to why you think this is a good thing?

Jeff

 

[EmperorOfKentukki]

Well....I can't see how it would be a bad thing.

'Quality' will always be a subjective evaluation made by the consumer of the service. There are good colleges, so so colleges, elite colleges....and fly by night technical colleges. Nonetheless....State regulations ensures that the students of these entities have some recourse when things go awry. So all I'm looking at is achieving a 'minimum' quality. Let's set the bar so to speak. Frankly...there is no agreed bar at this point..and that has always been part of the problem. Case in point...the recent thread on this message board about an 8 year old black belt and the missing KKW certifications. Granted...that is a civil matter, but maybe if that instructor had been forced to undergo a scrutinization...it might have impacted upon his professionalism and business practices as a whole.

I think background checks are reasonable. They are not intrusive and easily done by every local Sheriff's Office in the country. For a nominal fee (from $2 to $10) a person's background can be easily checked. Every other industry that deals with children had to undergo them...ergo...why I think it is just a matter of time before the MA industry will see regulation. The CPR criteria can't be a bad thing and would ensure a minimum safety competency of those running schools. As to the time requirements and the reporting...I think this will ensure the people involved are looked out. Sometimes...and ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure.

The market will always dictate who has the successful school. I'm not thinking of anything that would impede that. But I think such measures, as a first step (and that may all that is ever necessary) is a step in the right direction. It can only help teachers regain credibility in the public mind (and lets face it...right now...a martial art teacher is seen as someone who isn't taken very seriously...and martial arts in general are evaluted along the lines of about as reputable as local professional wrestling). Sure there are those that think their teachers walk on water...but that always isn't a good thing. Just the fact that someone from the outside can come in an take a look will deter the least of our fellows from hanging a shingle and doing more damage to us in general. I don't know that this will ever happen. But I do think it is something we should think about....seriously...and not just reject outright. I would rather martial artists sponsor such an action than it be driven by the rantings of some disenchanted soccer mom motivating a politician to sponsor and pass a bill into law with absolutely no knowledge of what we do, who is doing it and how it will affect all of us.

I'm sure I haven't thought of everything. I think that was why this was supposed to be a good thread for debate. If it never happens...maybe just by us debating it....we'll come up with a plan. If we have been down the road atleast as a mental exercise....it can only make us more knowledgeable about the nuances of being a professional teacher of martial arts and how we might deal with regulatory requirements (no matter who is the regulating authority).

JH

 

[Flying Crane]

(and lets face it...right now...a martial art teacher is seen as someone who isn't taken very seriously...and martial arts in general are evaluted along the lines of about as reputable as local professional wrestling). .

JH

That's a pretty broad sweeping generalization. I'd like to see you support it.

 

[EmperorOfKentukki]

The truth hurts.

I'll give you an example. Among what demographic do todays martial arts teacher find the greatest number of enrollments.

Answer: Children

Begs the question: Why don't we see these numbers among adults.

Answer: They've got more important things to do than waste their time and money on what is essentially an activity for kids.


It wasn't always this way....and we did it to ourselves.

JH

 

[Flying Crane]

There are schools that focus on children as a clientele, and there are those that do not. Usually there is a different atmosphere, depending on the focus. BUt that doesn't equate the Martial Arts Instructor with the local pariah.

Like any profession, there are those who carry a high degree of respect in the community due to how they behave and how they teach. There are others who have little respect in the community for the same reasons. This isn't unique in any way to the martial arts instructor.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Lots of training halls around the world do not focus on children. Just for examples : JKD, MMA, BJJ, Budo Taijutsu, Modern Arnis and most FMA systems, IRT, Krav Maga, etc. Plenty of systems are taught to adults with literally thousands studying them in the USA and around the world.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

The idea that a government body will help insure a minimum level of quality in the martial arts is simply ridiculous. Even if somehow it managed to do that, it would have to be way more intrusive than you have suggested.

On a second note, why worry about what the "general public" thinks about you? If you offer quality instruction, what difference does it make to you or your students if the populace outside of your training hall doesn't take you seriously?

If someone wants to study martial arts, there are plenty of resources now to find a good school. But still, the most important one for any school is word of mouth. Also, if you come across a bad school, report it to the local Better Business Bureau. People do check with that.

Jeff

 

[Flying Crane]

The idea that a government body will help insure a minimum level of quality in the martial arts is simply ridiculous. Even if somehow it managed to do that, it would have to be way more intrusive than you have suggested.

Jeff

Seriously, probably all it would end up being is an extra tax on this particular industry, in the form of Permits and Licenses and such.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Seriously, probably all it would end up being is an extra tax on this particular industry, in the form of Permits and Licenses and such.

Absolutely.

And when that didn't pay for all of it, other taxes would be raised to pay for another useless, unwanted government program.

Jeff

 

[Makalakumu]

I think that we need to resist government regulation of martial arts because the government is very EFFECTIVE at implementing regulations. The ruling body, or organization, that is on the "inside" is going to set things to benefit their organization. This is how nearly all government regulation works.

I think that it always starts with people who have higher ideals in mind, but greed and POWER eventually ****s this process up.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I think that we need to resist government regulation of martial arts because the government is very EFFECTIVE at implementing regulations. The ruling body, or organization, that is on the "inside" is going to set things to benefit their organization. This is how nearly all government regulation works.

I think that it always starts with people who have higher ideals in mind, but greed and POWER eventually ****s this process up.

Well said.

Jeff