Testing: Time requirement vs. When the student is ready
- Thread starter Azulx
- Start date
The place I train has specific testing dates and attendance sheets. The general rule of thumb is that there is a minimum number class requirements though that number is somewhat flexible depending on whether the student is ready. Also if the person is training in multiple styles there may be some flexibility with the number of classes. We've also had students who can't make one of the testing dates be promoted based on abilities.
When the student is performing whatever the requirements (fundamentals, kata/form, self-defense techniques, drills, sparring, whatever) to the level expected for that belt. If a guy can test three belts in three months because he is talented and is putting in the time to learn the material why would you hold him back? Why hold him back to an arbitrary time in requirement if he is outperforming it?
KenpoMaster805
2nd Black Belt
HI guys my name is Mike aka KenpoMaster805 In our system american Kenpo Karate the instructor would always give 2 tips if your a colored belt thats from White to green 1 tip is for basic and 1 for techniques and forms usually it takes 1 months before you test for yellow and like 3 month for orange and purple then 6 months in blue and green and the intructor will give a your 1st tip in week then other weeek 2nd tip if your ready to test then they give ya a schedule when the tetsing day is gonne be
Then from brown to Black it takes 6 months to a year you have a pretest to see if your gonna pass or not if you pass you gonna test in 2 weeks on saturday too for 2 hour you have to have your GI and your sparring your belt and book so ya thats how we do it
Then from brown to Black it takes 6 months to a year you have a pretest to see if your gonna pass or not if you pass you gonna test in 2 weeks on saturday too for 2 hour you have to have your GI and your sparring your belt and book so ya thats how we do it
I use a bit of both. The "time requirement" is built in. There are a set of techniques a student must get to be able to test for the next rank. I only give those at a rate of maybe 1 a week. They'll never be ready to test that quickly unless they are an intermediate (or higher) student in mainline NGA coming in, so the time requirement is actually meaningless, except to keep a reasonable expectation on the fast learners. In reality, a student coming in without prior NGA experience won't be able to get their first belt in under 6 months.
As for how to know when they are ready, that's an easy two-part answer for me:
- When they can do all of the new material (new sets of techniques introduced at first three ranks). When a yellow belt has a reasonable command of all 20 of their new Classical techniques and applications to them, as well as the intermediate Self-defense set, they are "ready".
- When their general movement and ability looks like someone of the rank they would be testing for. When a yellow belt is starting to move and respond like an orange belt should, they are "ready". This is subjective, and always will be. No two instructors will agree entirely on what that should look like.
Could you please punctuate your posts? It's difficult to read and follow your thoughts without it.
To ensure they don't get a sense of entitlement. To add a level of struggle to their training. To ensure they spend enough time understanding, rather than just learning the movements.
I'm sure there are other reasons folks could present, but those are the primary reasons I like time-in-grade requirements. Mind you, there are reasonable arguments for not using them - it's just a matter of deciding what goals you want to support with the rank/grade system.
I've been thinking about this lately, and I've decided my dislike of time-only requirements is not objective. If we assume the time-in-rank requirement is for actual training time (so, if you attend once a week, you'll need twice as many weeks as someone who comes twice), then the rank progression means only one thing in that school: how long you've been training.
I'm starting to think this may be no different from the debate over what a "black belt" means. In some schools/styles, it means a level of mastery (even instructor certification). In others, it means they have the beginner's curriculum. I don't see how one is inherently better than the other. So, if a school uses belts to simply mark how many hours of training a person has, that's not inherently wrong, so long as the instructor (and students) recognize that rank may have no relationship to skill or understanding.
Me, I prefer ranks that have some link to skill and understanding, but even then there will be people who exceed in some areas beyond their rank and others who have weaknesses below their rank.
Kickboxer101
Master Black Belt
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Messages
- 1,189
- Reaction score
- 311
When they're ready of course. If someone trains for 6 months but can only do half the techniques and forms obviously they don't deserve the belt
Entitlement? Assuming a student meets the standards of the rank, then yes, I think the student should awarded the next rank. If the instructor has some level of "understanding" as a requirement then of course the student should meet that as well. Adding arbitrary time to a student's progression doesn't add struggle, it will add boredom unless they are permitted to get to material that challenges them both mentally and physically.
Boredom is part of training, IMO. It's an important part. If we only do what's interesting, we won't learn the basics fully. I have seen students who progressed so quickly that they got a sense that they should be able to progress as quickly as they can show competence in a technique. Since overall development is part of what I build into my program, I like putting the faster learners through some slowing down. It's good for them to face those obstacles (the slower learners have an obstacle there, already).
Again, there are uses for it, and reasonable arguments for not using it. You're presenting the latter - they are good points. I don't see them as definitive, in and of themselves.
JR 137
Grandmaster
My dojo/organization has a minimum amount of classes before promotion policy. It's told to all students that that doesn't mean a maximum number either.
There's far more wiggle room with kyu/color belt ranks than there is with dan/black belt ranks. Some students promote before they reached the minimum. Not many do, it's mostly within the first belt or two, and they're usually short a few classes when it occurs. People with prior experience can promote before the minimum is met.
The minimum number also has to be met during consistent training. We have a guy who's been wearing the same advanced green belt for footing 7 years now. He trains for a few weeks, is gone for 6-7 months, come back for a few classes, and the cycle repeats. He has no problem with why he hasn't promoted and knows he's not ready.
The most important thing in all of it is the CI's decision. My CI trsts people when he feels they're ready. He's been at it for about 45 years, so he's seen enough IMO.
From what I understand, black belt promotions have a solid minimum time in grade. Again, consistently counts - if there's a 4 year minimum, taking 2 years off in the middle doesn't exactly count. My CI has recommend someone for promotion a little earlier than the minimum once or twice (his teacher, our founder does dan testing), and my CI's recommendation was accepted. His teacher respects his judgment.
Most often, my CI is conservative with promotions. He'd rather have someone wait a little longer than promote too soon.
There's far more wiggle room with kyu/color belt ranks than there is with dan/black belt ranks. Some students promote before they reached the minimum. Not many do, it's mostly within the first belt or two, and they're usually short a few classes when it occurs. People with prior experience can promote before the minimum is met.
The minimum number also has to be met during consistent training. We have a guy who's been wearing the same advanced green belt for footing 7 years now. He trains for a few weeks, is gone for 6-7 months, come back for a few classes, and the cycle repeats. He has no problem with why he hasn't promoted and knows he's not ready.
The most important thing in all of it is the CI's decision. My CI trsts people when he feels they're ready. He's been at it for about 45 years, so he's seen enough IMO.
From what I understand, black belt promotions have a solid minimum time in grade. Again, consistently counts - if there's a 4 year minimum, taking 2 years off in the middle doesn't exactly count. My CI has recommend someone for promotion a little earlier than the minimum once or twice (his teacher, our founder does dan testing), and my CI's recommendation was accepted. His teacher respects his judgment.
Most often, my CI is conservative with promotions. He'd rather have someone wait a little longer than promote too soon.
Meeting the required standard. I would guess.
I just want to point out that this question is largely without context and can't be seen as right or wrong with either answer.
Promotions need to be tied to how the curriculum is taught, and different schools are going to approach that differently. Size of the school is going to come into play as well.
If a school teaches on a 3-month cycle, promotions need to be every 3 months. Just like academic school, if things are on a semester cycle, you finish courses on a semester cycle. Some students might complete with a A+, and others a D, but they are still completing at the same time.
In a larger school where curriculum is divided into very easy to separate chunks this makes sense. You can't teach a big class when everyone is at different stages and has different requirements.
Generally if a student does what they are supposed too, they should be able to complete things. If they are behind, and things are being properly tracked along the way their should be a system in place to get them caught up, providing they are showing up and doing their part.
This is very different then the way something like BJJ is taught / graded in most places. Where you are graded based on performance against other people. You learn what is getting taught that day, and when you are able to apply things against others well enough, you go up. Makes a fair bit of sense in a system that stresses competition, you want to keep things fairly even.
Anyways, I don't think there is a right or wrong way to do it, you just need the promotion system to tie to the way the curriculum is divided and taught. There are obviously schools that will promote regardless of requirements, but there is a right and wrong way to do it to a schedule, and there is a right and wrong way to do it with a "when ready" approach.
Promotions need to be tied to how the curriculum is taught, and different schools are going to approach that differently. Size of the school is going to come into play as well.
If a school teaches on a 3-month cycle, promotions need to be every 3 months. Just like academic school, if things are on a semester cycle, you finish courses on a semester cycle. Some students might complete with a A+, and others a D, but they are still completing at the same time.
In a larger school where curriculum is divided into very easy to separate chunks this makes sense. You can't teach a big class when everyone is at different stages and has different requirements.
Generally if a student does what they are supposed too, they should be able to complete things. If they are behind, and things are being properly tracked along the way their should be a system in place to get them caught up, providing they are showing up and doing their part.
This is very different then the way something like BJJ is taught / graded in most places. Where you are graded based on performance against other people. You learn what is getting taught that day, and when you are able to apply things against others well enough, you go up. Makes a fair bit of sense in a system that stresses competition, you want to keep things fairly even.
Anyways, I don't think there is a right or wrong way to do it, you just need the promotion system to tie to the way the curriculum is divided and taught. There are obviously schools that will promote regardless of requirements, but there is a right and wrong way to do it to a schedule, and there is a right and wrong way to do it with a "when ready" approach.
I actually tested last night, so now I am the proud owner of a yellow piece of duct tape on my white belt (I kid but I'm actually very happy). I suppose the school I attend is a combination of the two philosophies of testing. There are testings held only every so many months (so there will always be a minimum amount of time between belts), but you don't automatically test each time testing roles around. You have to be invited by the instructor to test. And truth be told now that I've experienced testing, I'd say it's less of a test and more an ordeal you have to go through to get your belt. What I mean to say is, that from the moment testing starts you don't stop moving, you're running, doing jumping jacks, sparing, doing line drills etc. You are occasionally pulled out of line to do a kata but, from what I was told after the test, you get your belt by virtue of completing the test not by how perfect your kata was (I think they also understand you're exhausted at that point) because the instructor wouldn't have invited you to test if you hadn't already showed a proficiency in the things you are expected to know. The "test" is really only how hard you are willing to work to get the belt.
I probably tested faster than some other people did (I know several of the white belts had been taking classes at least a couple months longer than I was). I also have taken other martial arts in the past. I think it makes sense to test people at there own schedule based on how well they are doing. At my particular school there are also more belts for children than adults, so kids test more often. Which gives them a sense of accomplishment and motivation that adults may not need. All in all I like the way my school handles testing, but my glutes are less than fond of the squat kicks of death I did during testing.
I probably tested faster than some other people did (I know several of the white belts had been taking classes at least a couple months longer than I was). I also have taken other martial arts in the past. I think it makes sense to test people at there own schedule based on how well they are doing. At my particular school there are also more belts for children than adults, so kids test more often. Which gives them a sense of accomplishment and motivation that adults may not need. All in all I like the way my school handles testing, but my glutes are less than fond of the squat kicks of death I did during testing.
Based it on a bunch of things. Always based belt testing on ability, effort, attendance (two guys training for a year, one comes once a week, the other comes every night. Not the same) attitude, fighting ability, understanding of what's being taught, fitness, manners and patience.
Hey, we all got our thing. That was mine.
I believe it takes ten years to really understand fighting, self defense and Martial Arts in general. As for mastery, I haven't the foggiest.
Hey, we all got our thing. That was mine.
I believe it takes ten years to really understand fighting, self defense and Martial Arts in general. As for mastery, I haven't the foggiest.
thanson02
Blue Belt
That is a good base level standard requirement for grappling too. I have the luxury right now to be taking a break from teaching to polish my stuff and reassess my lessons plans for when I get back into teaching on a more regular basis. This level of experience in grappling is what I am working on to get our beginner level students to be at by the time they graduate to the intermediate program. I was able to get them to be able to spar 1st and 2nd degree black belts in Tae Kwon Do and American style Karate and either hold their own or beat them by the time they hit the advanced color belt ranks, so I wanted to make sure that we were doing the same for their ground work as well. Biggest thing is "pressure testing" though with good people.
As for the comments about tip testing, we also do this, but we see it as a progress report more then anything. No charges or fees, just let us know your are tip testing and when we perform screening, we assess where you are at. If things look good, you get your tip.
thanson02
Blue Belt
This.
If you are going to master a system, you have to put in the work, fun, boring, frustrating, etc. These each provide avenues to work on our mental discipline and focus.
Do you also arbitrarily elongate the not talented students workload so that they get to be bored as well? I mean we wouldn't want them to miss out on that experience.
My focus is training the student p into the system until he reaches a point that challenges him, at which point the student gets all of the benefits from being challenged to master the material that the not talented student will get. Different students will reach that point at different times and at a different depth in the curriculum.
thanson02
Blue Belt
If they're truly diving into master the system, the system itself will do that. I don't need to make it worse on the students. As for the rest, we are on the same page. [emoji4]
Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk
