# If.....



## MJS (May 2, 2010)

you had the power to change 5 things in the Kenpo/Kempo/Kaju art that you study, what would they be and why?  If you feel that there is nothing that needs to be changed, feel free to state that, but also why you feel that way.


----------



## J Ellis (May 2, 2010)

The technical things that I would change, I DO change in my personal practice. I don't change the standard. I simply make the modifications and adjustments in my execution of it that I believe increase its efficacy. (The written material in the systems I study is only a starting point anyway. It tells you _what_ to do but does not fully explain _why_ or even begin to explore _how_.) I also supplement my Kenpo with crosstraining and prior training experiences. So these adjustments are not a matter of "if I could" but rather "what I do."

The things I would change all relate to organizational politics and rank.

Joel


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 3, 2010)

What's to change? Its different from school to school, and if you hang around long enough at least five things will change in the school you are in.
Sean


----------



## MJS (May 3, 2010)

1) Put politics on the back seat.  Worry about your own training, not what 10 others are doing.  If you have no interest in training with any of those 10 groups, then no need to concern yourself with what they do.

2) Be more strict on rank promotions.  

3) Don't be afraid to adapt and change with the times.

4) Encourage people to go out and look at other things on the 'menu.'

5) Learn the history of the art.


----------



## MJS (May 3, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> What's to change? Its different from school to school,


 
True.  Then again, some schools seem to want to advance and better themselves and the art, while others stay in the same pattern they've been in for years.  How is anything to grow if that happens?




> and if you hang around long enough at least five things will change in the school you are in.
> Sean


 
True again. Of course, those changes may not always be for the better.


----------



## KenpoDave (May 3, 2010)

MJS said:


> 1) Put politics on the back seat. Worry about your own training, not what 10 others are doing. If you have no interest in training with any of those 10 groups, then no need to concern yourself with what they do.
> 
> 2) Be more strict on rank promotions.
> 
> ...


 
Too often, people embrace 3 to the demise of 2.

They shouldn't have to.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 4, 2010)

KenpoDave said:


> Too often, people embrace 3 to the demise of 2.
> 
> They shouldn't have to.


Its a business. I've seen yellow belts, that hardly show up, quit because their peers, that did show up, got promoted before them. That is to be expected, but people will stop training for a zillion reasons, and promotion is right at the top of the list.
Sean


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 19, 2010)

1. Limit the limitless individual techniques. There's so many hand strikes for example, that stuff and movement gets redundant, and most will never get used. Stick to focussing on the tried and true, most used and useful.

2. Train with realistic combinations of the strikes like boxers do. (especially if being given a multitude of strikes) Make it all functional.

3. Make the dojo like fighting gyms again, not the "family friendly environment"

4. Stop the conveyor belt operations, where more focus is given to individual needs. The basics have to be proper and it takes time. No more "good enough" or "they'll get it later on" philosophy.

5. Accept groundfighting as necessary to learn, and stop referring to it or practitioners of other styles as "jokes." End the "patch mentality" once and for all.


----------



## MJS (Jun 19, 2010)

Hand Sword said:


> 1. Limit the limitless individual techniques. There's so many hand strikes for example, that stuff and movement gets redundant, and most will never get used. Stick to focussing on the tried and true, most used and useful.
> 
> 2. Train with realistic combinations of the strikes like boxers do. (especially if being given a multitude of strikes) Make it all functional.
> 
> ...


 
1) I agree.  Its safe to say we've done them all, but I agree...I have my favs that I prefer.

2) Good points.  This actually gives me an idea for discussion.

3) Amen!  Kajukenbo holds true to that. 

4) Agreed 1,000%!!!!  Probably one of my biggest pet peeves.  Of course, I do find it funny when people come on here and actually try to defend this kind of garbage.

5) Preach it brother!!  Then again, its supposedly 'all in there' and that may be the case, but I'd rather go to something with a proven history, rather than play games trying to 'find' things.


----------



## Carol (Jun 20, 2010)

1. Add firearms safety and training

2. Eliminate homogenized programs for kids and adults.  Adults don't shove each other in the lunchroom, kids don't need to crush another child's esophagus.  Have a kids program address kids needs, then at a certain age, size, and/or maturity level, begin adult training.

3. Eliminate probationary/junior/honorary/kiddie/anything but adult-earned black belts. Show honor to those that deserve recognition through a letter of recommendation, a certificate that cannot be confused with rank or teaching ability, or by giving one's time and effort to assist the person of honor.  Give kids something fun and colorful (they are kids, after all...), say a red-white-and-blue belt or a camo belt, or the novelty belt of their choice and let them know they will earn their black belt once they come of age.

4. More rigorous, and more defined requirements for each belt level, starting the student's first day of class...including fitness requirements for each rank and some sort of competitive measure, including alive training.   Yeah, its going to hurt...but even those of us with professional jobs can tough out one heavy contact sparring event per belt level.

5. Ditch the white gi. Nao.


----------



## youngbraveheart (Jun 20, 2010)

After ten years I still feel like a beginner and still have a long lifetime of learning to go. I don't believe anything needs to change in what we do. Why change anything William Chun Sr created, which William Chow blessed, which Bill Chun Jr teaches? I'm just happy to be a student under the Chow/Chun System.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 21, 2010)

Not meant to infuriate or challenge, just playing devil's advocate, but, All systems can be scrutinized and newer things added or learned. No one is above improvement. These systems were created decades ago, some centuries. Culture has changed through that time. These systems came during their changes to suit the needs then. Evolution can continue while still respecting and remembering the old ways. All of the founders continued to learn throughout their lifetimes. 

Now, Bless you for admitting your status and your view. That is honorable. And if your are truly happy what you practice and learn- Bless that even more! Especially in this day and age!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 21, 2010)

I've actually thought a bit about this thread and I've been tempted, yet reluctant to add my thoughts to it.  I finally decided to do so, but they are not the thoughts I originally supposed I might add...

I certainly have my own complaints about the kenpo system that I study.  It ain't perfect.  I've got other influences that cause me to look at things differently, and I perceive things that to me, are problematic with it.  

But I respect the system for what it is, and I respect my teachers and the lineage that they represent.  They've given me a lot, opened my eyes, and shared with me the results of many decades of training.  For that I am very very grateful and I have the utmost respect for them as people, friends, and teachers of kenpo.

for this reason, I am not able to publically state what I don't like about it and how I might change it, if I was King For A Day.  I think it would just come across as disrespectful and maybe even sour grapes, and I'd hate for anyone to ever think I felt that way towards my teachers and what they have given me.

So for me, suffice it to say that I do not believe it is perfect, as I don't believe anything truly is.  There are things I don't like about it.  But there is a lot that I DO like about it, and I take it for what it is.  That's really all I can say.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 21, 2010)

Carol said:


> 1. Add firearms safety and training


 
Hi Carol,

I'll ask you this: why do you feel firearms training ought to specifically be part of kenpo?

seems to me that kenpo is a specialized method of unarmed combat.  Personally, I think firearms training simply falls outside the scope of kenpo, and outside the scope of expertise that most kenpo instructors have.  If you desire that kind of training, then I think the best solution would be to find a competent instructor and get it from that source.  But I don't see a reason to believe firearms ought to become a mandatory or standard part of kenpo training.  Lord knows, there's enough incompetent kenpo instructors out there already.  I'd hate to think about those folks offering firearms training on top of it.

Personally, my instructor is ex-vietnam era military, and ex-law enforcement, and is very skilled with firearms.  He maintains his enthusiasms for the topic, and would be willing to work with anyone in our group who has the desire.  He is someone who I feel would definitely be a competent instructor in the topic.  Personally, I'm not interested, and if someone sort of tried to say it was mandatory, I'd probably leave the club.  I joined to train in an unarmed method.  I'd join a gun club if that was what I was interested in.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 21, 2010)

Carol said:


> 5. Ditch the white gi. Nao.


 
personally, I'd ditch all gis.  I just don't care for them, regardless of color.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 21, 2010)

1. Stop the ceaseless bickering between various branches and families of kenpo.

2. Cut the number of techniques in half, or even a third, while spending the same amount of time in training. Focus on understanding rather than rote memorization.

3. Adapt the weapon disarms to the fact that modern attackers are more sophisticated (for example, who thrusts with a knife anymore?).

4. Add enough ground game that a kenpo guy who gets knocked down by some MMA thug can fight back to his feet and continue the fight standing up.

5. Include more fitness in our workouts and among our seniors. It's a sad fact of life that my "baby weight" from this year's new addition has several of my friends commenting that I look like I'm ready for promotion.


----------



## Thesemindz (Jun 22, 2010)

The Kenpo that _I_ study is pretty open ended. If I haven't gotten to something yet, I will eventually if I keep training enough. And I know a lot of other people train this way too.

But Kenpo _in general_ could use more _spontaneous_ drills, more of an understanding of physiology, a lot more of an emphasis on basics, more and better knife information both offensively and defensive, and a real dedicated study of ground work. It could also use less bs, fewer internet tough guys, and a lot fewer experts. Add in a little less hero worship and a little more sparring and I think you'd really have yourself a martial art there.


-Rob


----------



## MJS (Jun 22, 2010)

Flying Crane said:


> Hi Carol,
> 
> I'll ask you this: why do you feel firearms training ought to specifically be part of kenpo?
> 
> ...


 
I'm not Carol, but I'll toss in my .02 on this.  IMHO, I think that anytime a weapon is taught, it should be explained how that weapon functions.  Make the student familiar with it, so in the event they are faced with one, they'll know what they're up against.  The same can be said about a blade.  The same can be said about a choke, a take down, anything.  Its easy to say to someone, "This is how you defend against a gun to your chest."  

So if that Kenpo teacher can't give that, because its outside of the Kenpo scope, then bring someone in who can teach it.  I never said that we had to go out, get a pistol permit and join the local NRA, but become familiar with how it functions.  

I'll use the choke as another example.  If its a 2 handed choke or a RNC, IMO, I think its a good idea to talk about the effects of the choke, whether or not its targetting the airflow or blood flow, how to apply these types of chokes, etc.  Whats the sense of learning to defend against something that you dont even know how to do yourself?

Just my .02


----------



## MJS (Jun 22, 2010)

Thesemindz said:


> The Kenpo that _I_ study is pretty open ended. If I haven't gotten to something yet, I will eventually if I keep training enough. And I know a lot of other people train this way too.


 
Thankfully my teachers are all open minded as well. 



> But Kenpo _in general_ could use more _spontaneous_ drills, more of an understanding of physiology, a lot more of an emphasis on basics, more and better knife information both offensively and defensive, and a real dedicated study of ground work. It could also use less bs, fewer internet tough guys, and a lot fewer experts. Add in a little less hero worship and a little more sparring and I think you'd really have yourself a martial art there.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
Spontaneous drills:  I love these!  My inst. and I do them all the time, and I do them in the classes that I teach.  I agree...they should be done more often.  I have a few different ways that I teach them.  Every time I do them, I always get positive feedback. 

Knife and ground work:  This is why I cross train in Arnis and BJJ.  IMHO, you gotta go to the source if you really want to understand these types of things.  

Is all this stuff already there?  It may be.  But I look at it like this...if it was there, and taught the way it should be, then why isnt it as big of a household name, as the katas and techs.?  I mean, in every Parker school, we pretty much see the same katas and techs taught.  Where is that solid ground and knife work?


----------



## Carol (Jun 23, 2010)

Flying Crane said:


> Hi Carol,
> 
> I'll ask you this: why do you feel firearms training ought to specifically be part of kenpo?
> 
> seems to me that kenpo is a specialized method of unarmed combat.



Bad guys don't care.  The more one knows about a weapon, the more effective one's defense will be against it -- including decreasing the likelihood of injuring other people.



> Personally, I think firearms training simply falls outside the scope of kenpo, and outside the scope of expertise that most kenpo instructors have.  If you desire that kind of training, then I think the best solution would be to find a competent instructor and get it from that source.  But I don't see a reason to believe firearms ought to become a mandatory or standard part of kenpo training.  Lord knows, there's enough incompetent kenpo instructors out there already.  I'd hate to think about those folks offering firearms training on top of it.


Logically that does not follow, and reasons such as this underscores the need for firearms training.  Some decent training does a lot to show what firearms can, and cannot do.



> Personally, my instructor is ex-vietnam era military, and ex-law enforcement, and is very skilled with firearms.  He maintains his enthusiasms for the topic, and would be willing to work with anyone in our group who has the desire.  He is someone who I feel would definitely be a competent instructor in the topic.  Personally, I'm not interested, and if someone sort of tried to say it was mandatory, I'd probably leave the club.  I joined to train in an unarmed method.  I'd join a gun club if that was what I was interested in.



OK.


----------



## Thesemindz (Jun 23, 2010)

Flying Crane said:


> seems to me that kenpo is a specialized method of unarmed combat. Personally, I think firearms training simply falls outside the scope of kenpo, and outside the scope of expertise that most kenpo instructors have. If you desire that kind of training, then I think the best solution would be to find a competent instructor and get it from that source. But I don't see a reason to believe firearms ought to become a mandatory or standard part of kenpo training. Lord knows, there's enough incompetent kenpo instructors out there already. I'd hate to think about those folks offering firearms training on top of it.
> 
> Personally, my instructor is ex-vietnam era military, and ex-law enforcement, and is very skilled with firearms. He maintains his enthusiasms for the topic, and would be willing to work with anyone in our group who has the desire. He is someone who I feel would definitely be a competent instructor in the topic. Personally, I'm not interested, and if someone sort of tried to say it was mandatory, I'd probably leave the club. I joined to train in an unarmed method. I'd join a gun club if that was what I was interested in.


 
I think you have every right to train in whatever you want, and if you are in a place which is requiring you to practice or train material you aren't interested in, you should go somewhere that has the product you want. We should all be doing that.

That aside, do you think you could ever learn everything there is to know about defending a punch without ever learning to execute a punch? Do you think you could even learn enough to recognize a punch when it was being used to intimidate rather than injure? Do you think you could learn how best to manipulate your opponent, based on his goals in executing the punch, that you could offbalance him or redirect his energy against him? Without learning how to punch, or getting punched, or throwing punches and having them defended against?

What makes a gun different?


-Rob


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 23, 2010)

MJS said:


> I'm not Carol, but I'll toss in my .02 on this. IMHO, I think that anytime a weapon is taught, it should be explained how that weapon functions. Make the student familiar with it, so in the event they are faced with one, they'll know what they're up against. The same can be said about a blade. The same can be said about a choke, a take down, anything. Its easy to say to someone, "This is how you defend against a gun to your chest."
> 
> So if that Kenpo teacher can't give that, because its outside of the Kenpo scope, then bring someone in who can teach it. I never said that we had to go out, get a pistol permit and join the local NRA, but become familiar with how it functions.
> 
> ...


 
I think you hit it on the head here, Mike.  I agree, if you are going to work with the weapon in any way, including simply as defensive techniques against the weapon, then some functional knowledge of the weapon ought to be part of the instruction.

I was thinking more on the level of, buying a gun, getting a carry permit, going to the range and taking extensive instruction in combat/self-defense handgunning, something like that.  That's what came to my mind when I read Carol's post.

I don't have any problem with someone pursuing that training if they are interested in it.  I don't have a problem with a knowledgeable kenpo instructor with the appropriate expertise in firearms offering this kind of instruction to his student.  I don't have a problem with somebody making this a standard part of how they personally train.  

I do think it's a bit of a stretch to feel that it ought to become a standard part of what kenpo training is, and making it a mandatory part of the program.  I suppose there are some people who may do this, and if it works for their particular group, then all the power to them.  But overall, I just think it's a stretch.

You have talked about the knifework in kenpo, and how you feel the best way to get quality knife instruction is to go to the Philippino systems.  Kenpo just doesn't offer it on the same level.  Go to the people who specialize in it.  I kind of feel like it's the same thing with kenpo.  Kenpo isn't a gun specialist system.  If you desire those skills, go to the gun specialists.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 23, 2010)

Carol said:


> Logically that does not follow, and reasons such as this underscores the need for firearms training. Some decent training does a lot to show what firearms can, and cannot do.


 
I commented more fully on Mike's post, but I'll ask you this: where have you gotten your decent training in firearms?  I understand you are interested in it, you've posted about it in the past.  I think you've gotten training in it, yes?  From whom did you get it?  And do you think your local kenpo school would be able to offer gun training of equal quality?

All I'm saying is, if you desire that kind of training, go to the experts for it.  There are always exceptions, but most kenpo teachers are not those experts.  Exceptions aside, I doubt that will ever change.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 23, 2010)

Thesemindz said:


> What makes a gun different?
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
A gun is a piece of hardware that requires a financial committment to purchase and use, and a committment of time and energy to maintenance and practice.  Laws vary on one's ability to carry it.  Places where you can train with it are limited.  Most people cannot go into their basement or garage or backyard and practice their shooting.  To do so would endanger their homes and families and communities.  Firearms training differs from unarmed combat, or even training with non-projectile weapons like knives or sticks or swords or spears.

I commented on Mike's and Carol's posts, but I'll say it again here:  with some exceptions, most kenpo teachers are not gun experts and I doubt that is likely to change outside of the exceptions.  I just do not believe it is realistic to think that thorough gun training will become part of one's kenpo instructional program.  If you want thorough gun training, go to the gun experts.


----------



## Thesemindz (Jun 23, 2010)

Flying Crane said:


> A gun is a piece of hardware that requires a financial committment to purchase and use, and a committment of time and energy to maintenance and practice. Laws vary on one's ability to carry it. Places where you can train with it are limited. Most people cannot go into their basement or garage or backyard and practice their shooting. To do so would endanger their homes and families and communities. Firearms training differs from unarmed combat, or even training with non-projectile weapons like knives or sticks or swords or spears.
> 
> I commented on Mike's and Carol's posts, but I'll say it again here: with some exceptions, most kenpo teachers are not gun experts and I doubt that is likely to change outside of the exceptions. I just do not believe it is realistic to think that thorough gun training will become part of one's kenpo instructional program. If you want thorough gun training, go to the gun experts.


 
I think that's all fair.

I don't think students should be required to buy a gun, or even shoot a gun. I think it's a good idea for them to _hold_ a gun, and I think they need to have some understanding of how they work. At the very least, it should be explained to them.

I think more is better, but I encourage people _in general_ to have, understand, and be trained in firearms. I think it's a good idea to own them, and shoot them, and know how to do both correctly.

If nothing else, I think the student should watch a youtube video of one being fired.

Ultimately, I think more knowledge is better, but that's between the student and his instructor.


-Rob


----------



## LawDog (Jun 23, 2010)

As for weapons, including firearms, 
If you are going to defend against a weapon properly then you should at least have the basic knowledge on how to use it.
If you are going to use one then you should have a basic knowledge on how someone will defend against it.
As for changes within Kenpo, I did that a long time ago.
:ultracool


----------



## Carol (Jun 25, 2010)

Flying Crane said:


> I commented more fully on Mike's post, but I'll ask you this: where have you gotten your decent training in firearms?  I understand you are interested in it, you've posted about it in the past.  I think you've gotten training in it, yes?  From whom did you get it?  And do you think your local kenpo school would be able to offer gun training of equal quality?
> 
> All I'm saying is, if you desire that kind of training, go to the experts for it.  There are always exceptions, but most kenpo teachers are not those experts.  Exceptions aside, I doubt that will ever change.



Sorry for the late reply, I thought I responded to your post earlier.  My browser must have eaten what I wrote 

Yes, I have been trained, and would like to be an NRA instructor myself in the future.   

I agree with you -- firearms take a commitment of both money and mindset to own and practice; not everyone is up for that kind of commitment, nor should they be. 

My reasons for firearms training in Kenpo echo what MJS and TheseMindz have said...I don't believe that Kenpo should offer comabitive shooting or other types of training that may appeal to more dedicated enthusiasts.   However, there is a lot that can be learned from a defensive standpoint by learning the cardinal rules of firearms safety and learning first hand what firearms can and can't do.  There is also a lot that can be learned (and much that can be demystified) by going to the range, learning how to fire a few shots, hearing what they sound like and what they feel like. 

These basics can be covered in a day's time. It doesn't take an enormous commitment of time (or money) to cover the essentials.

That's how I see it anyway.  I'm fine with disagreement, too.


----------



## K831 (Jun 25, 2010)

I look forward to reading the posts of others, but no time now. The last 'association change" I made was to the AKKI and that fixed the vast majority of issues I had with Kenpo, but I'll add a few that nag at me. 

1.) Cut the number of memorized techniques down to like 1/3. Chose a select number that encompass the needed motion, timing, angles etc and dump the redundant memorization.

2.) Trade the remaining forms and techniques for more emphasis on our already existing, too often neglected but awesome 2 man sets, offensive techniques (brown belt included) and weapons sets and drills.

3.) More firearms training (Integrating the draw stroke into techniques, retention, disarms etc) Our updated knife and stick material is superb, lets roll out the firearms stuff! 

4.) More of the ground curriculum, but not from the point of view that "I train BJJ with my Kenpo"..No, no, no we don't hunt for submissions in the street, BJJ is a sport! Lets focus on take-down defense, position, strike and back up!

EDIT: I forgot it was supposed to be 5 things... um, more playing with multiple attacker situations. It's nice now that we don't train the old eh..hum... stuff.


----------



## Milt G. (Jul 5, 2010)

Flying Crane said:


> I've actually thought a bit about this thread and I've been tempted, yet reluctant to add my thoughts to it. I finally decided to do so, but they are not the thoughts I originally supposed I might add...
> 
> I certainly have my own complaints about the kenpo system that I study. It ain't perfect. I've got other influences that cause me to look at things differently, and I perceive things that to me, are problematic with it.
> 
> ...


 
Hello,
Nicely stated good points...  Thank you.

Milt G.


----------



## Yondanchris (Jan 23, 2011)

MJS said:


> you had the power to change 5 things in the Kenpo/Kempo/Kaju art that you study, what would they be and why?  If you feel that there is nothing that needs to be changed, feel free to state that, but also why you feel that way.



1) I would like to echo the firearms training comments already made. But I would add that the focus of a martial artist should be to disarm and disable an attacker (and any weapon(s) he/she is using (hands, feet, knife, gun). 

2) I would (and have) added a lot more ground techniques and require grappling mat time from all of my students. I feel this adds at least a basic familiarity and form, so just in case it goes to the ground my students feel comfortable in defending themselves there (and just about any other environment) 

3) I would (and have) delete duplicate techniques and redundancies, all to common in the Kenpo/Kempo/Kaju systems. I like that finally other MA are reducing their arts to the essentials and leaving the "fancy" stuff to the Black Belts!! 

4) I would (and have) continue traditions passed on to us from our "ancestors", one tradition in-particular would be the passing down of belts to your students. I am saving my 1st Dan Black Belt for my wife (who is currently a Blue Belt) and then hopefully to my child. It brings some of that 'ohana' we have been talking about here on the forums to life. 

5) Wider acceptance of cross-training or training in other styles/arts. 
One of the things I really disliked when I was growing up, in life and the MA, 
was that a person was always punished in the dojo for cross-training or dabbling in other styles and arts.....especially if it was AK or Kajukenbo! I feel that more and more martial arts need to accept that they individually do not hold "The Truth", but more that they hold an "Aspect of the truth" as it comes to the MA. If there where one MA that had it all I think most of us would be studying that art, but since it does not exist it is time for us to co-exist! 

Ramblings of a humble and ignorant kempoka, 

Chris


----------



## ppko (Jan 24, 2011)

I would deffinately have them move forward with the times.  Adding Reality Based is a big step and also adding different drills ie sticky hands, rolling whatever works.  I personally have went away from saying that I teach Kempo anymore just because I don't teach what any traditionalist would consider Kempo instead I have went back to what the Okinawans originally called there arts Te


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 24, 2011)

I'm not surprised that the politics was mentioned.

I'm also not too surprised that many people said to reduce the amount of techniques.

I am surprised that no one mentioned eliminating the extensions as part of the material to reduce.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 29, 2011)

This is _specifically _about Shaolin Kempo

1) I'd get rid of gi's altogether. They look nice, but I think a more realistic approach would be to train in what you would wear in normal life.

2) De-emphasizing techniques and focusing more on the principles from which those techniques derive.

3) Instead of having 8 million ways to defend against a step-through punch, students should practice against more realistic attacks, and it should start at _white_ belt.

4) Actually, never mind white belt. Get rid of belts altogether. This alone would get rid of a lot of bickering that goes on in the arts. There are students, teachers, teachers of  teachers, and system heads. That's it.

5) Update the way we learn and teach to include the most current research in education and neorology.


----------

