Thriving schools

[Daniel Sullivan]

Ive taught guitar for years and never charged a cent. Running my business is my day job, away from work if Im passionate about something and good enough to teach it, then Im happy to share the passion and dont expect anything in return.

There is a cost in time and dedication from both the student and the teacher. There is a cost in materials, for either the student, the teacher, or both. As was pointed out earlier, there is a cost in intangibles for both the teacher and the student.

You may go to your student's home or they may come to you, thus eliminating the cost of renting space, and since you do not depend on your income from guitar instruction for sustenance, you are able to absorb whatever monetary costs are involved.

The fact that you may be the one covering the costs and without passing that onto your students does not make it free; it simply means that someone else (you in this case) is footing the bill.

You are happy to share the passion, and that is your return, your dividend. The best things in life cannot be attained simply by paying for them, so I am sure that you reap many times in that dividend the expense you put forth.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I just saw this and wonder how many other people in this forum are running free dojangs or attend dojangs where they don't pay dues. Another question would be whether it's accurate to refer to such dojangs -- into which one pours money for no monetary return -- as "thriving" enterprises, at least in the capatilistic sense, especially when compared to commercial or even non-profit dojangs, which have to break even.

Commercially they are not thriving, but as anyone who teaches for the love of teaching knows, thriving (in the general sense) goes beyond monetary measurement.

I am assuming there are costs involved in running a free dojangs, even those located in the home garages of their operators.

Kicking pads, breaking boards, mats, belts, training weapons (dummy knives and guns) certificates, and cleaning products used to keep everything sanitary, plus a first aid kit, not to mention time put into preparing the classes and whatever curriculum/teaching syllabus, as well as various miscelaneous expenses.

 

[miguksaram]

I don't see why this would be an issue. Several people have stated that it is the kids that keep the doors open. That isn't a dig or slam, just stating the reality of the situation. Do these schools not host b-day parties and other kid-friendly activities beside the martial program? Of course they do, and no one is saying this is a bad thing. The word 'cater' should not be taken in a negative context. I'm happy that they have kid-friendly activities.

The issue is that you are making a generalization about TKD schools just because they have more kids than adults, and no, not all of these schools do the b-day parties, so again, that is general jump in your conclusion. As I already stated, I teach kids at the health club. I do not do any b-day parties nor do I do any outside kid activities that doesn't involve martial arts. My friend who teaches Arnis to kids does not do b-day parties nor does the school that teaches a kid's HKD class.

But my point of circular reasoning stands.
Puunui has made this statement several times in relation to TKD. But again, I point out that it is circular reasoning.

Please explain how.

 

[miguksaram]

In response to a couple of items here, let me start by saying I do not have statistical data available on what I am about to say. On the subject of SD not being the main focus of why people are joining martial arts. Back in 2010, I was part of the world delegation that went over to S. Korea. In this delegation we had 80 people from 13 different countries. While I did not sit down and talk to all 80 people, I did have a chance to talk to about 20-30 of them. This particular topic came up. What I learned from people who were from Australia, South Africa, Thailand, Spain, Canada, Mexico, U.S. (naturally), England, and I believe Taiwan (could be China mainland) was that 80% of the people who signed up for classes did so for either exercise or better discipline/focus for the kids. The remaining 20% fell into the catagorey of self defense or "olympic" dreams of doing TKD. When I was at the MAIA show back in 2008 I met a delegation from Australia and gentleman from Hong Kong, both which were karate people, both of whom stated that more kids because their parents wanted them to have more self confidence and discipline. While they do have people who come in specifically for self-defense, those students are few and far between. Again none of this is backed by statistics, just backed by me listening to what others are telling me abou the trends in their country.

As for Glenn's school, while I have not been there personally, still waiting for the free trip to the islands, I have met him several times at the Hanmadang as well as traveled over to Korea with him (he too was part of the world delegation trip). I am not sure what kind of "proof" is being sought, but yes, he does exist and yes he does have students and yes he is very much involved in the TKD world. When you have several US TKD pioneers recognizing who he is as well as seek legal advice from him, he definitely not some chump who is shooting his mouth on a board because he has nothing better to do with is time.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

The issue is that you are making a generalization about TKD schools just because they have more kids than adults...

You're missing the point Jeremy. Others have understood the point and I invite you to review my posts.

Please explain how.

I have, two or three times. Again, others have understood the point and I invite you to review my posts.

 

[miguksaram]

You're missing the point Jeremy. Others have understood the point and I invite you to review my posts.



I have, two or three times. Again, others have understood the point and I invite you to review my posts.

As much as I would to schlep through several pages and sift through it can you just link to explaination? Honestly, I must have missed where you explained how it is circular reasoning. Thanks.

 

[harlan]

As an aside addressing the concept of 'thriving schools'. Agree that the understanding of 'commercial thriving' is pretty much understood, and just a matter of degrees. My understanding of a school that is 'thriving' is one that has been able to produce other teachers that also have students. Each line of the school, each generation, has to be assessed. A good example might be the Ryu-te school by Oyata sensei. It was thriving while he was alive, with what seems to have been several schools, several seniors. But now, after his passing, the association has fractured, there is in-fighting, and possibly syllabus changes. How to assess 'thriving' in that sense where some schools have plenty of students, or some a have few high level ones, and there are changes?

Commercially they are not thriving, but as anyone who teaches for the love of teaching knows, thriving (in the general sense) goes beyond monetary measurement.


Kicking pads, breaking boards, mats, belts, training weapons (dummy knives and guns) certificates, and cleaning products used to keep everything sanitary, plus a first aid kit, not to mention time put into preparing the classes and whatever curriculum/teaching syllabus, as well as various miscelaneous expenses.

I guess I'm applying my goju understanding to this question. Goju is a success because it has spread in general, even though there are many different lines at this point. Within that, there are some singular lines/associations that are commercially and headcount wise doing very well, even though some of the dojos are very small and not producing senior students. For comparison, there is our line which has grown, calved off senior students where some are teaching, but each dojo seems to be very small. Commercially, not a success. But still producing a few students each generation that will probably teach.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Jeremy, you and I were just discussing it yesterday...

Circular reasonong = a tautology is a statement which is true by its own definition, and is therefore fundamentally uninformative. Logical tautologies use circular reasoning within an argument or statement.

Statement - the majority of TKD students don't want self-defense, they want sport.

Facts;

• TKD is predominately a martial art populated by children. This is true in Korea as well as other countries. Those, including you that have been to Korea have substantiated this as factual.
• You do not teach adult SD to children. Anti-bully programs and abduction prevention yes. Adult SD, no.
• Thus the majority of TKD schools teach sport related programs since the bulk is children. It is commercially viable and many instructors don't know any other way to teach as this is what they themselves have learned.
• Many parents that join may do so out of convienance rather than have different schools for themselves and the kids.

Thus, since the majority of schools are populated by a majority of children, the majority teach sport related material. It isn't a matter of what they want and/or need, it is the only thing available to the majority of students in a TKD school. Therefore, as a majority they are provided only one possible option. I/we/you/they can't turn around and state that this is the only thing they want, or that they don't want anything else. They take what is offered. The fact that other types of schools offer non-sport or balanced programs that teach children, including your own posts, it has been demonstrated that some are indeed interested in something other than sport TKD given the choice.

A simple version is this; a city has 10 TKD schools. Nine of them are sport only schools with a majority of children for students. They each have a hundred students. The instructors of these schools only teach sport art as this is the only thing they've learned themselves. The tenth TKD school isn't a sport styled school. Call it SD, call it traditional, call it non-sport or whatever. It has a hundred students and a balanced program. On could say that 90% of the students of that city don't want SD or whatever. But that isn't quite the case and it would be misleading. It would be more factual to say that 90% don't have an option. Many may only want sport and it is fair to point that out. Many may want social interaction or just to get off the couch, nothing wrong with that. Some may want SD or a balanced program but can't get into the one school that teaches it as it is on the other side of town or the schedule doesn't match their own.

The point is simply that no one can claim to speak for an entire art. People can take TKD, or any martial art for any reason that seems good to them. And that is simply wonderful. Some folks here would be better off simply saying, 'some folks love a particular program and for these folks we offer a great program...but we recognize and celebrate that others have different wants/needs and we wish them well in finding a program that delivers for them'. I think that would go over a lot better than, 'TKD people don't want SD anymore', because it isn't a factual statement and too be honest, it's somewhat arrogant presumption.

With respect.

 

[Archtkd]

That is a good question. From a capitalistic point of view, such as school I suppose wouldn't be 'thriving'. But if the point of the school isn't centered around money then it shouldn't/doesn't matter. I don't teach for a living so I have the flexibility to teach for the enjoyment of teaching in-and-of-itself. My reward is seeing a student progress, seeing a student successfully using what I've taught to protect themselves, seeing them develop into an instructor themeselves. This isn't to say that these aren't rewards for instructors that charge, only that I'm in the position where I don't need to charge.

I'm looking into making a complete shift towards something like a church or inner-city community center. Give teens and adults that can't afford MA instruction the opportunity to train. Current students will continue but it will open up opportunities for others. I'll have to see how it pans out. Too me, that would also be a thriving school.

The header of this thread is "Thriving Schools." I don't want to sound too literal, but words have to mean something, Thrive means to "grow or develop well or vigorously; prosper, flourish." That's according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Along those lines, and putting it bluntly, liking what you do as a teacher, feeling satisfied, and seeing students effectively use techniques you've taught them for free, does not equate to thriving school.

By most measures, if you've had a dojang for 20 years and membership or the number of qualified (according to your standard) practitioners you have produced annually has remained the same, we would say that's a stagnant dojang, not a thriving one. If you always have long lines of students on a waiting list, because you don't have space or time to teach them, that's not a good example of thriving. Stagnant, by the way, does not mean bad school.

On a side note, the idea of a church, community hall setting sounds good, but I would urge you to charge a small fee. Most people, especially those in the poorest neighborhoods, develop a better sense of pride and financial responsibility by learning how to pay for something valuable. I know this from personal experience.

 

[miguksaram]

Jeremy, you and I were just discussing it yesterday...

Circular reasonong = a tautology is a statement which is true by its own definition, and is therefore fundamentally uninformative. Logical tautologies use circular reasoning within an argument or statement.

Statement - the majority of TKD students don't want self-defense, they want sport.

Facts;

• TKD is predominately a martial art populated by children. This is true in Korea as well as other countries. Those, including you that have been to Korea have substantiated this as factual.
• You do not teach adult SD to children. Anti-bully programs and abduction prevention yes. Adult SD, no.
• Thus the majority of TKD schools teach sport related programs since the bulk is children. It is commercially viable and many instructors don't know any other way to teach as this is what they themselves have learned.
• Many parents that join may do so out of convienance rather than have different schools for themselves and the kids.

It is your third point that I feel you are making a jump in logic. Just because you have a predominate children presence doesn't mean you teaching sport martial arts as your main focus.

Thus, since the majority of schools are populated by a majority of children, the majority teach sport related material. It isn't a matter of what they want and/or need, it is the only thing available to the majority of students in a TKD school.

What are you basing this thought on? Assumption? Statistics?

A simple version is this; a city has 10 TKD schools. Nine of them are sport only schools with a majority of children for students. They each have a hundred students. The instructors of these schools only teach sport art as this is the only thing they've learned themselves. The tenth TKD school isn't a sport styled school. Call it SD, call it traditional, call it non-sport or whatever. It has a hundred students and a balanced program. On could say that 90% of the students of that city don't want SD or whatever. But that isn't quite the case and it would be misleading. It would be more factual to say that 90% don't have an option. Many may only want sport and it is fair to point that out. Many may want social interaction or just to get off the couch, nothing wrong with that. Some may want SD or a balanced program but can't get into the one school that teaches it as it is on the other side of town or the schedule doesn't match their own.

I understand what you are saying about choice. My problem doesn't lie in choices being offered. My issue is with the assumption that because we have more kids than adults you automatically come to the conclusion that the TKD school is sport oriented. While they may participate in sports, this doesn't mean that is the main focus. I currently have 27 students all kids. So by your logic I teach sport martial arts. This is simply not true. I teach a traditional curriculum. Out of the 27 kids only 6 are even remotely interested in doing competition, so I produced a class specifically for competition, but it not a main focus class.

The point is simply that no one can claim to speak for an entire art. People can take TKD, or any martial art for any reason that seems good to them. And that is simply wonderful. Some folks here would be better off simply saying, 'some folks love a particular program and for these folks we offer a great program...but we recognize and celebrate that others have different wants/needs and we wish them well in finding a program that delivers for them'. I think that would go over a lot better than, 'TKD people don't want SD anymore', because it isn't a factual statement and too be honest, it's somewhat arrogant presumption.

No I believe he was saying SD is not the main reasoning for people taking TKD anymore.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

The header of this thread is "Thriving Schools." I don't want to sound too literal, but words have to mean something, Thrive means to "grow or develop well or vigorously; prosper, flourish." That's according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Along those lines, and putting it bluntly, liking what you do as a teacher, feeling satisfied, and seeing students effectively use techniques you've taught them for free, does not equate to thriving school.

I understand, and appreciate the point(s) you've brought up. A lot depends, I suppose, upon the interpretation of the definition. I like the definition that you've posted;

Thrive means to "grow or develop well or vigorously; prosper, flourish

Using only myself as an example, from a financial standpoint my school doesn't 'thrive'. I don't have a chain of schools so in that commercial aspect, it doesn't thrive either. However, looking at the definition - 'grow, develop well, prosper'. I've grown to the point that, IMO, I can't handle additional students at this time due to the amount of individual attention I wish to devote to each. This is strictly my choice and not to reflect on anyone else or their methods. When I teach firearms for academies or in-service we have a ratio of one instructor to three students. For defensive tactics the ration is 1:8. For operations there is no limit. So I've grown to the point that I feel maxed out. This may be changing in the near future where their are plans to be able to delve into the waiting list. However, I have trained students that have gone on to become teachers themselves. So in that light, I have duplicated myself and the school and/or art has grown. To me that is prospering. Not from a financial perspective, but that isn't my/our focus.

More specifically, many of my students have gone on to successfully defend themselves in real altercations. Too me, that is a good example of 'develop well and/or prosper'. If and when they teach others what I have taught them, and then they in turn successfully defend themselves the art has grown/prospered.

On a side note, the idea of a church, community hall setting sounds good, but I would urge you to charge a small fee. Most people, especially those in the poorest neighborhoods, develop a better sense of pride and financial responsibility by learning how to pay for something valuable. I know this from personal experience.

I understand what you're saying and agree with you. Perhaps whatever small amount can go to the church or community center or simply to a charity or mission trip. I'm not rolling in money, but I consider myself very blessed (in more ways than just financial). My love is not for the money, but for the teaching itself. That is not to be taken as against someone teaching for a living.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Jeremy,

Although this is an interesting, and sometimes informative medium to discuss the martial arts, it perhaps isn't always the best. I think that sometimes things are 'lost in translation'. The tone is misinterpreted and past disagreements color present perspectives. Sometimes I think that if all of us were sitting around a table or even standing in the Dojang discussing things face-to-face things would be different. Then the tone and body language would better relay what we're saying.

I think we are often closer in opinion than we are farther apart (this is for you/me/us). I think it would behoove us all to enjoy our individual contributions to the art(s), or the segment of the art(s) we teach and do our best to help each other in our goals.

 

[miguksaram]

Jeremy,

Although this is an interesting, and sometimes informative medium to discuss the martial arts, it perhaps isn't always the best. I think that sometimes things are 'lost in translation'. The tone is misinterpreted and past disagreements color present perspectives. Sometimes I think that if all of us were sitting around a table or even standing in the Dojang discussing things face-to-face things would be different. Then the tone and body language would better relay what we're saying.

I think we are often closer in opinion than we are farther apart (this is for you/me/us). I think it would behoove us all to enjoy our individual contributions to the art(s), or the segment of the art(s) we teach and do our best to help each other in our goals.

I can agree on that. Those who know me or have met me know that I am not a stand offish kind of guy, though I have no problem speaking my mind (right or wrong), so when I ask some of the questions, for the most part are sincere non-confrontational questions, sometimes they are sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek. Body language, tone of voice, etc..etc..etc..are always an issue when posting to these boards. Plus you cannot discount a reader's mood when reading a post. Overall, I sleep well at night, because in the long run, none of this is going to upset my life or derail me from my goals.

 

[puunui]

Statement - the majority of TKD students don't want self-defense, they want sport.

Wrong. Again. How many times do we have to repeat the same thing? The opposite of self defense is not sport, and it is not an either or situation. The fact that you do not understand that prevents having a meaningful discussion on this issue. Ask any teacher and they will tell you the same thing, very few students are interested in competition. What they do sign up for is exercise, weight loss, better concentration and discipline, etc., what is lumped under the category of "self improvement", which is not necessarily self defense or competition. Your basic premise and foundation is factually flawed, and therefore everything else that follows is incorrect and flawed as well.

 

[puunui]

Although this is an interesting, and sometimes informative medium to discuss the martial arts, it perhaps isn't always the best. I think that sometimes things are 'lost in translation'. The tone is misinterpreted and past disagreements color present perspectives. Sometimes I think that if all of us were sitting around a table or even standing in the Dojang discussing things face-to-face things would be different. Then the tone and body language would better relay what we're saying.

Even if this were face to face, the result would be the same because again, you misunderstand and think that because people no longer want to learn self defense, then that means that they want to learn what you call "sport", meaning they want to compete. that is simply not true, whether it is written down or spoken out loud.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Overall, I sleep well at night, because in the long run, none of this is going to upset my life or derail me from my goals.

Same here

 

[Jaeimseu]

Even if this were face to face, the result would be the same because again, you misunderstand and think that because people no longer want to learn self defense, then that means that they want to learn what you call "sport", meaning they want to compete. that is simply not true, whether it is written down or spoken out loud.

I'm fairly certain this has been discussed before at some point, in this thread or another, but there seems to be a perception that the majority of taekwondo schools are "sport" schools. I could certainly be wrong, since I can only talk about what I have seen, but in my experience, "sport" schools are rare. I think a "sport" school is a niche thing, maybe even a bigger niche than a self-defence school. The overwhelming vast majority of students I have come across have had no interest in competition, and absolutley no thought of ever competing in the olympics. Even the schools I've seen who compete a lot have had a relatively low % of students who compete. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe 80% or more of the students don't compete, or compete only recreationally at small local events. I've only heard of a few schools that teach only "sport." And those schools are small groups of elite students who want to train in a more competitive environment than in the general student body of a normal school.

So, to be on topic, I don't think there are many "thriving" sports schools out there, because just like a SD school, the numbers will be small, by design.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I'm fairly certain this has been discussed before at some point, in this thread or another, but there seems to be a perception that the majority of taekwondo schools are "sport" schools. I could certainly be wrong, since I can only talk about what I have seen, but in my experience, "sport" schools are rare. I think a "sport" school is a niche thing, maybe even a bigger niche than a self-defence school. The overwhelming vast majority of students I have come across have had no interest in competition, and absolutley no thought of ever competing in the olympics. Even the schools I've seen who compete a lot have had a relatively low % of students who compete. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe 80% or more of the students don't compete, or compete only recreationally at small local events. I've only heard of a few schools that teach only "sport." And those schools are small groups of elite students who want to train in a more competitive environment than in the general student body of a normal school.

So, to be on topic, I don't think there are many "thriving" sports schools out there, because just like a SD school, the numbers will be small, by design.

Not so long ago Daniel Sullivan (IIRC) was using a definition of "sport" that was so braod as to include any sort of activity people engaged in for fun. That means a TKD school doesn't have to focus on competition to be a "sports school." As such "sports" would be a very large niche if that definition was used. I don't recall Kong Soo Do specifying what definiton he was referring to in this thread. It's possible that he was using Daniel's definition. But even if he wasn't, I have found that people sometimes refer to schools as teaching "sport" even if competition isn't the main focus. This is especially true of KKW TKD schools because the sparring system they use is so closely associated with competition.

FWIW.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Not so long ago Daniel Sullivan (IIRC) was using a definition of "sport" that was so braod as to include any sort of activity people engaged in for fun.

Yes, a definition quoted from the dictionary.

That means a TKD school doesn't have to focus on competition to be a "sports school." As such "sports" would be a very large niche if that definition was used.

That is why in my response to KSD, I didn't criticize his use of the term ("you teach kids sport"). While I'm pretty sure that he means competition/WTF sparring, that isn't what he typed, and I felt that the word usage was correct.

And for the record, I don't view sport as a dirty word, but I also don't differentiate SD as being specifically 'not sport.' Very few people go into a taekwondo class with a mindset of "I'm gonna learn to be able to beat the crap out of an attacker," though I do think that there is a reasonably sized group of people who hope to get SD as part of the package. Just as there are people who hope to get into competition and win trophies/medals. The majority in my opinion are simply looking for an enjoyable physical activity, which may include competition, self defense, or any number of other things.

Really, the big question isn't how one defines sport, but how one defines SD. There have been several threads on MT over the years that ask the question, 'what is SD?/what is practical SD? what makes a school SD?' and each tends to go on for at least as many pages as this one with a variety of differing answers, most of which have merit.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

What would I have to type in order to get you to let this go? You are using inflammatory language, and seem intent on picking a fight.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Steve,

Sorry to bring this back up, but I was mistaken: I do have more to add.

Though I was not trying to pick a fight with you, I do think that most of the exchange we were talking past each other to a certain extent.

You tried to end the exchange with a friendly note and I blew you off. That was wrong of me and I would like to offer you an apology.

Sorry for my part in the friction. It was uncalled for.

Daniel