As Gup ranks get higher (lower, you get it) testing's get more about Applying skills. More testing under pressure and less critical about 'perfect' technique. This is where you, and the instructor, must be able to assess and quantify any variance as acceptable or unacceptable. Always another good chance to discuss the differences, good or bad. So in this respect it would be more specific to where an individual shows weakness in a certain skill. Not sure how you write a standard for this. If you write the standard of testing X kick and the tester is great at X kick then you may completely miss a weakness in another area.
I do intend to cover a wide range of things on the test day.
Although one thing I was considering (and still am, to some extent) is to do the stereotypical: forms, sparring, breaking. The other things I want people to learn can be pre-tested (i.e. I check their knowledge in class).
In short, I can definitely see needing to have parameters met for each belt level as a must have. But trying to put everyone in the same box is one of the shortcomings of many schools systems. People have to be pushed commiserate to their potential or at least their desired level of 'push'. I have never really liked the idea of trying to put a MA program down on paper in a hard rigid method. Too many things can be lost in translation and you as the instructor loose some of your flexibility in teaching/methodology.
This is why I'm looking to move away from my Master's curriculum, in which
everything is memorized, to a curriculum based on teaching techniques and concepts, and letting the students put those together in different ways. The way I see it, if you teach 10 rote combinations, then you've taught 10 things. But if you teach 5 techniques and 5 concepts, you've taught 25 things. If I teach 1 more technique and 1 more concept, then I've taught 36 things. By teaching 2 things, I've taught 11 at that point. The math won't perfectly work out (many concepts only apply to a subset of techniques), but that's the general principle.
With that said, I
do have a list of techniques and concepts I would like to teach at each level. I have a few reasons for this:
- Some techniques build on others
- Some techniques require more experience do be done correctly and safely
- To break up what I know into more manageable bites
In the triangle of time, difficulty, comprehension, I feel time can be more consistent and repeatable for the lower belts where it is typically all technique driven. I would expect very few exceptions here. So all three can be close to a written testing standard. Somewhere around green/blue for adults and red/brown for kids testing must become more individualized, throwing a hard written standard out the window to a degree. But you can still develop a general standard for how testing is performed, usually in the context of forms, pressure testing, sparring, breaking or other style related material.
You will likely find that even things like physical location and access to resources will affect your decision making. Low ceiling? Jumping kicks are a problem, Limited space? Testing dates may have to be spread out. Few people of the same size? Limited pressure testing/sparring. It goes on and on. So you will likely have to make some things up on the fly. I would say it happens more often than not.
I'm going to disagree a bit on pressure testing. I personally would rather see pressure testing in class, and more of a demonstration testing on testing day. The reason for that is if I ask a student to do X technique, it's going to be very difficult to do X technique on a resisting opponent. That's why we learn different techniques: so that when our opponent resists Technique A, we can transition into Technique B. If I ask the student to do Technique A, and he has to do Technique B to be successful, that does show his ability to adapt, but it doesn't show his ability with Technique A.
Similarly, if Fighter A is partnered with Fighter B, and Fighter C is partnered with Fighter D, and Fighter D is much better at defending these techniques, then Fighter C will look worse than Fighter A, even if both have the same level of technique. For example, in my Hapkido class, we have a couple of bigger, stronger guys. One of them is very tough to apply the techniques on. The other is a Pro Wrestler, and so it's very easy, because he's conditioned for showmanship. As soon as you get any leverage on him, he complies. In class, I can see how Fighter A and Fighter C handle a variety of opponents.
I do agree that access to resources is a consideration. Another consideration for time is how many people can do what. For example:
- Board Holders
- One-Step Partners
- Sparring Partners
It can take a lot longer if only one person is holding boards at a time, vs. if I have several lines going. I imagine that for the lower belts (especially kids) I would have instructors be the partners for one-steps, but at the advanced level it would be the students.
You know I do not care for the Taegueks. That said we strongly encourage people to be thoughtful and 'creative' with them, often asking where/how certain sections of a form have application during testing and to display the application. This has always been our method regardless of form set. It is the best way I know of to make/keep forms applicable in modern training.
If you get away from forms all together it would be a true paradigm shift in teaching/testing TKD. It would completely change class structure, intent, and method so it would be a huge change. So obviously this would greatly affect your triangle of testing criteria. Can you identify the hard sections like those mentioned? Forms, pressure testing, sparring, etc...?
If I were to get rid of forms, I'd call it Hapkido instead. But I don't have the rank to have any authority there. I'm wary of making my own art, because I know for every person that makes their own and is successful, there are hundreds, if not thousands that fail. And I know the reputation that comes with that, so if people ask "is Skribs-Ki-Do legit?" then the response most people will have is "never heard of it, so probably not."