New York legislators want to license m.a. instructors

[phantom]

There is an article in both this month's and last month's ssues of Martial Arts and Combat sports magazine which talk about how New York legislators want to require martial arts instrctors to have a license in order to teach. The articles state some reasons why this would be a bad idea, including the following:
1. Sometimes the head instructor is not able to show up for class, so one of the most senior students temporarily teaches the class in his or her place. Would such students also be required to obtain a license to teach? Considering the fact that many of them have other responsiblities such as work, family, and school, probably a good amount of these students would not want to invst the time to study for a test in order to obtain the license. I feel that would be a real shame. In my own personal experience, sometimes the senior students are even better teachers than the main instructor is.
2. If an instructor from another state or country wanted to give a seminar in New York, would he or she have to obtain a license to do so? If so, would not that discourage some of them from coming to New York?
3. Licensing is no guarantee of good quality. Just look at how many people have a driver's license, yet they are very poor drivers. There are also some pitiful doctors in the world also, even though they were able to obtain a medical license.
I feel that all you guys and girls who live in New York should write to Hillary Clinton and your other state representatives to prevent this from happening. I do not see any good that could come out of this law if it is passed. I feel that New York is like a martial artist's paradise, since you can learn almost any style there is there, and under well-renowned instuctors. I would hate to see anybody go out of their way to ruin that. Peace.

[ewallace]

next thing you know they will want to shove a probe in everyones ass to test for emissions.

[Budokan]

If the license would be granted under strict standards and the instructor have to go under review every so often, it wouldn't be such a bad idea. Might get rid of some of the hocus-pocus toy styles masquerading as martial arts nowdays....

Unfortunately, all it will really mean is some turniphead goes down to City Hall, pays his $50 to the city (which will then squander it) and go back to teaching in his McDojo. Or, worse yet, open up a "new" McDojo that specializes in some made up martial art used to fleece the unsuspecting white belt. (Tae Bo springs to mind.)

The current state of Martial Arts is in enough of a mess. This would only make things worse, believe it or not. Leave well enough alone, I say.

[rubthebuddha]

and who in new york will be the unbiased judge of who is a good instructor and who isn't? who will set the standards? legislators who know jack shît about martial arts? good god, i hope not.

much less, how high will the standards be? i see this easily becoming (if not starting out as) the big brother to the mcdojo:

mcdojo: instructor throws black belts at any random student who pays. student takes belt home proudly, thinking he actually knows anything, and gets clobbered thinking his black belt is worth more than the thread it took to make it.

mcnewyork: governing body throws certification at any random instructor who pays. instructor takes certificate home and shows it off to ignorant students. students sign up for mcdojo class, acquire same worthless belt, this time under the guise of a certificate new york gave someone that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[rubthebuddha]

or better yet, this:

by requiring instructors to get licenses through the government, new york would be accepting a certain degree of responsibility and liabilty in case of problems.

let's put it this way: i'm walking through central park, get confronted, try to fight my way out and get the **** kicked out of me. i'm upset, thinking my martial arts training should have worked. i look at my instructor, realize he's just a poor guy with some skills but has no cash*, so i look elsewhere. then i realize that, on the wall of my school hangs a certificate saying that new york approves of this instructor, and since new york approved of an instructor who didn't adequately prepare me to defend myself against four guys with clubs, i see legal recourse.

two words:

cha-ching



*-this no-cash rule does not apply to temple kung fu.

[shaolinboxer]

With a fair amount of debate and some responsible decisions, I think this is actually a good idea.

There are enough MA instructors out there scamming people, hurting people, molesting people, and generally doing nasty and underhanded things that some sort of regulation may be wise.

In South Korea all MA instructors are registered with the govt.

The certifications would, ofcourse, not guarantee the quality of instruction. But it would guarantee that the instructor had not been brought up on charges such as rape, criminal negligence, or fraud.

Political abuse of such laws is always possible, but most people out there looking to train would feel good about such certification. As for the rest, train at an illegal, underground school and forget about it.

[Black Jack]

My vote is hellll no.

The cream raises to the top for those that look for it anyway, this just opens a floodgate for the banning of certain arts and mindsets, its just another way for the government to make a buck.

[Cody]

good reasons have already been given to refuse this sort of "supervision." Hate to be sarcastic, but next the government would be appointing grandmasters.
sounds like a legaleese/insurance company notion. Too much is certified these days. Soon you'll need to get certified "human", or "correctly human," just to leave the birthing hospital, for a fee, of course. crap.

Cody

[txwingchun]

I say hell no also. The goverment regulates enough of our freedoms. I'd rather have the mcdojo's out there. let the buyer beware, thats all we need is the goverment telling instructors what M.A. tech they can and cannot teach. Too much big brother in my personal buisness.

[Ray Pina]

I can see all the CHinatown sifu standing in line to receive their license from the state.

I would like to see some sort of self-imposed order. Sounds crazy and barbaraic, but I say bring back the open challenge matches. You open up within X-miles from Y's school -- get ready to meet a challenge. I think we would see less McDojos if some 23 year old who got his black belt from a Cracker Jacks box was going to be paid a visit by a top Wing Chun, Hung Gar or Hsing-I student.

Makes it less about money and more about quality. You'd be in it because you love it and want to keep your style alive, present, up to date, and not to make money selling soccer moms colored belts.

I know it will never happen, and who would judge who's good and all of that, but I think it would take care of itself ... though I do admit its an old school idea that wouldn't work.

But think, if you'd be stoked to have this in place, what does that mean about your aproach to martial arts? If this was in place and you start $hitting your pants the day its imposed, what does that mean?

Who would you rather learn from?

[shaolinboxer]

The concept of challenge matches between schools has nothing to do with what the state wants to regulate.

How will that weed out sex offenders? How will that prevent people found guilty of criminal negligence from opening schools?

It's about societal credibilty, not about competition between fighters.

[red_fists]

Hi.

Personally, I think it is a good idea.
I don't think that Instructors will be licenced based on their Ma Skills.

While this can't guarantee the skill/validity of the MA being taught, it can still make sure that each Instructor is properly trained in teaching, running a Dojo, First Aid, spotting problem behaviour,etc and so on.

Way to many out there run a McDojo rip people off, than close down and re-open a new one in a new location teaching a slightly different style.

Licences work both ways.
Students are kinda guaranteed that their Instructor knows what he teaches.
Instructors get the benefit of:
a.) extra dvertisement due to the licenceb.) more Students willing to join them due to a Licence.

Similar to what happened with the initial MA associations.

[David Jamieson]

I agree with it from the point of view that anything to increase the legitimacy of martial arts institutions is a good thing.

Also, as mentioned it does set minimal ground rules regarding background checking and so on with people who get a lot of influence with their student body.

It also sparks the opportunity to clearly define systems of martial art by common governing bodies. Politics yes, but quality is key in any type of physical instruction.

Boxers and Boxing clubs have to be licenced already I thought.

It has good and bad to it. Ultimately, some teachers will remain unlicenced and teach only who they want to teach by word of mouth and by invitation. That goes on in a lot of fields. Not just martial arts.

Makes for more legitimacy in the eye of the common folk, opens new opportunity for sanctioned tournaments and opens the door to common standards for tournaments in not only the state, but in the country and in other countries that follow suit.

peace

[red_fists]

I always look at licences from the following point of view.
Regardless of what type of licence it is, Driver, Gun,etc.

If you are trained and pass all the requirements to get a Licence you will.

If you don't, who is too blame. Only yourself.

Licences are not there to control things, but rather to assure other People that you have passed a certain standard and quality.

Just my de-valued 0.2 Yen.

[Serpent]

Yeah, but licenced by what criteria?

If the only things you need to get a licence are a background check, a first aid licence and proof of personal liability insurance, then fair enough.

But not if they're going to judge your martial ability or credentials. They're not qualified to do that.

Still, maybe the appointed government official would have to cross hands with each prospective candidate! Could be fun. Have you beaten a public servant today?!