Belt Rank Progress

[WaterGal]

The problem with the instructor deciding when a student can test, especially if its a large dojo with lots of students is that it would be really hard if not impossible for an instructor to keep track of every student's progress. Imagine if you were running a dojo, you have over 100 students, and you have to know by heart where every student's progress level is and in addition to that it keeps changing as students gain progress as they keep working at it. That's why students should choose if they want to sign up for an up coming promotion exam, A sensai could not keep track of everybody.

If you run a dojo and can't keep track of the progress of people you teach multiple times every week, especially if you're using a belt system and so you know more-or-less where they are by looking at their waist, then you need to be paying more attention to your students.

 

[lklawson]

The comment about "what do you expect from an art where it only takes six years to fourth dan" is dismissive; the poster indicated that he's accustomed to second dan students having something along the lines of three decades in, which in most kyu/dan systems is enough time for a hachidan. Others say that a less than four year TKD student isn't a "real blackbelt," or that TKD schools that promote to black belt in less time are belt factories, ignoring that in Korea, the nation of origin of the art, it only takes one year.

The standards that such posters hold up are fine and I have no criticism of them. But those posters are judging other schools by what they're accustomed to rather than on what is reasonable or what is normative for the art in question.

Ignore them. The comments expose a lack of experience in the martial arts. Every school, organization, and system all have independent standards, unique to themselves, about what any given rank within that system means. They are completely irrelevant to any other school, organization, or system. Just because a "green belt" in one system represents some given set of skills and experience unique to that system doesn't mean it has any bearing whatsoever upon some other system. If you can't draw any comparisons about "green belt" what makes people think they can draw any conclusions about "black belt?" That's just silly. Sorry folks, but you're going to have to divorce yourself from what Hollywood has been telling you "black belt" means. Your opinion is, frankly, irrelevant to the standards of that school, organization, or system.

About the only time that there are some points of comparison is when the schools and/or organizing bodies make deliberate effort to allow for that. One prime example is Judo in the U.S. Most Judo schools join an organization which regulates the standards within that group. The school subsumes their standards to that of the organization. Similarly, I've lost track of how many independent Judo organizations there are in the U.S. But most of them recognize dan ranks from the other organizations. They've all agreed upon a similar standard. This is very unusual. Last time I heard ITF Tae Kwon Do, ATA Tae Kwon Do, and WTF Tae Kwon Do didn't necessarily recognize belt ranks from the other and were in the habit of offering "provisional" belt ranks, often lower than what had been earned in the other organization. Heck, they can't even agree on how to westernize the spelling; Taekwondo, Taekwon-do, etc.

C'mon now guys, if ITF/WTF/ATA Tae Kwon Do can't agree on what skills any given belt rank should represent, what the devil makes you think that Goshindo (for instance) should have any credibility on what a TKD black belt "should be" or how long it "should take" to achieve it?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[RTKDCMB]

The comment about "what do you expect from an art where it only takes six years to fourth dan" is dismissive; the poster indicated that he's accustomed to second dan students having something along the lines of three decades in, which in most kyu/dan systems is enough time for a hachidan.

I am sure you did not do it on purpose but you have sightly misconstrued (my word for the day) what I had said. Firstly it was 4th Dans that had 3 decades in, not 2nd Dans. Secondly, what I meant from the comment was that only 4th Dans and above in that system can promote color belt ranks because it only takes 6 years to get there and in a system where it takes longer than 6 years to get to 2nd Dan a 1st Dan can promote color belt students because they have a similar amount of experience, that was all I meant.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I am sure you did not do it on purpose but you have sightly misconstrued (my word for the day) what I had said. Firstly it was 4th Dans that had 3 decades in, not 2nd Dans.

Correct. That was a typo on my part. Apologies. In reference to second dans, I believe you had said that you think it should be six years to second dan.

Secondly, what I meant from the comment was that only 4th Dans and above in that system can promote color belt ranks because it only takes 6 years to get there and in a system where it takes longer than 6 years to get to 2nd Dan a 1st Dan can promote color belt students because they have a similar amount of experience, that was all I meant.

You are correct. I took you out of context. Apologies.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I revise my comment:

One poster indicated that he's accustomed to second dan students having something along the lines of three decades in, which in most kyu/dan systems is enough time for a 3rd or 4th dan. Others say that a less than four year TKD student isn't a "real blackbelt," or that TKD schools that promote to black belt in less time are belt factories, ignoring that in Korea, the nation of origin of the art, it only takes one year.

The standards that such posters hold up are fine and I have no criticism of them. But those posters are judging other schools by what they're accustomed to rather than on what is reasonable or what is normative for the art in question.

My post wasn't meant to be directed at anyone specifically but to point out that people tend to make value judgements based on their own experiences or on what is normative in their own art or school.

 

[PhotonGuy]

As it is, every sensai has their own methods and their own systems for promotions and belt advancements. Some instructors, as pointed out by many people in this thread, tell a student when they can test for their next belt and then the student will test. Some instructors such as mine will let the student decide if they want to sign up and test for their next belt and tests are held every 3 to 4 months. Some instructors will wait until the student wants to test and says so, I once briefly attended such a place. Some instructors will hand out belts and ranks if you pay them enough money and that is what I would call a McDojo and in my opinion such places are not worth going to. Regardless of whatever system the sensai uses, its important that the student knows what they need to do to get to the next belt up to and including black belt. If a student has gone awhile without the sensai telling him he could test than the student should know why they are not being called up to test and what they need to fix or work on. In my dojo, when you fail a promotion test they tell you why you failed and what you need to work on and that's how it should be in every system. If its a system where the sensai has to tell the student they can test for the next belt before the student can test, than the student should know what they need to do to meet the sensai's standards for the next belt and how to bring themselves up to par. The student should know what they need to do for every belt including the black belt. There is no reason why the student shouldn't have such information.

 

[Cirdan]

As it is, every sensai has their own methods and their own systems for promotions and belt advancements. Some instructors, as pointed out by many people in this thread, tell a student when they can test for their next belt and then the student will test. Some instructors such as mine will let the student decide if they want to sign up and test for their next belt and tests are held every 3 to 4 months. Some instructors will wait until the student wants to test and says so, I once briefly attended such a place. Some instructors will hand out belts and ranks if you pay them enough money and that is what I would call a McDojo and in my opinion such places are not worth going to. Regardless of whatever system the sensai uses, its important that the student knows what they need to do to get to the next belt up to and including black belt. If a student has gone awhile without the sensai telling him he could test than the student should know why they are not being called up to test and what they need to fix or work on. In my dojo, when you fail a promotion test they tell you why you failed and what you need to work on and that's how it should be in every system. If its a system where the sensai has to tell the student they can test for the next belt before the student can test, than the student should know what they need to do to meet the sensai's standards for the next belt and how to bring themselves up to par. The student should know what they need to do for every belt including the black belt. There is no reason why the student shouldn't have such information.

A student should know what the curriculum is and what he/she needs to work on sure. I don`t think anyone can know when they are ready for grading without having been told by their instructor however. You would have to be quite a bit above the required level to make an accurate judgement, in wich case you should have graded already and probably more than once.

Do you mind if I ask how long you have been training?

 

[RTKDCMB]

You are correct. I took you out of context. Apologies.

No apology necessary, just had to set the record straight.

 

[lklawson]

A student should know what the curriculum is and what he/she needs to work on sure. I don`t think anyone can know when they are ready for grading without having been told by their instructor however. You would have to be quite a bit above the required level to make an accurate judgement, in wich case you should have graded already and probably more than once.

And yet, that's pretty close to the method that all Primary and Secondary schools use in the developed world. The student shows up to class, the teacher instructs, then the student takes a test, usually with little to no input from the teacher as to whether or not the student is "ready."

Ask yourself what is the point, the purpose behind the test? Obviously to ensure that the student has a working knowledge of some given skill and information set and can perform at some given level of expertise. Sometimes, it's important to the participants that the student be tested "under stress." Now, look around at all the various training programs testing physical skills and information from around the world and across disciplines. Look at everything from ASE (automobile mechanics) to Medical certifications (Doctor, Nurse, etc.) to computer technology (CompTIA, MCS[P/A/E], RHC[A/E], etc.) to legal (Lawyer, Paralegal, etc.) to college & university. What you see is a variety of training and testing methods. In some cases the student has no choice when to take tests and must meet a deadline to test, pass or fail. Failure means taking the test again, maybe repeating the curriculum. In some cases the student may take all, some, or only the final certification test at their discretion, with any input from the instructor being at the student's discretion as well to heed or not. And there are many variation between. All of them are proven to work, to produce capable graduates with serviceable skills.

If all of these various methods can work for other skills instruction, then it can work for martial arts too. It is entirely possible to run a martial arts school like a regular primary school where the students have a curriculum that they must complete and then, with no discretion at all from the instructor or the student, the student takes a test at a given time. Success or failure could determine whether or not the student must repeat the curriculum.

It is entirely possible to run a martial arts school like a Microsoft Certified Professional program where the instructor teaches the required information and the student decides when he wants to take a test. The test may be performed on site or the student may even have to go to a third party to take the test.

It is entirely possible to teach martial arts in the old European "Apprenticeship" model with the student passing from Apprentice, to Journeyman, to Master. In fact, martial arts instructors in England used almost exactly that method during the Tudor period with the Company of Maisters. Students would petition to join, train for no less than 7 years, then would be required to request permission to "Play the Prize" which, if granted, included posting an open challenge to any and all other members in the Company. They would be judged by a panel of instructors based on their performance. 7 years minimum from Scholar to Free Scholar. 7 or more from Free Scholar to Provost. Provost to Master, if ever, another 7+ years. And the student would decide if he thought he was ready to Play the Prize but had to ask permission from the Master, who could give or withhold the permission. (Students would also be required to buy, out of pocket, the challenge hand-bills and post them around the town and in nearby locals).

Of course, rank-by-immediate-award (Batsugun) still happens occasionally in some arts such as Judo and is (or was) quite common in some BJJ schools; when you can "hang with" the next rank, then you achieve the next rank.

Stop thinking so narrowly. Just because some other school does grading differently from how you are familiar with it, doesn't mean it's wrong. It's how they do it. Results are what matters. If, in the end, the student is transmitted and retains the requisite knowledge then their method works, regardless of how much input the student has on when he attempts to grade.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

As it is, every sensai has their own methods and their own systems for promotions and belt advancements. Some instructors, as pointed out by many people in this thread, tell a student when they can test for their next belt and then the student will test. Some instructors such as mine will let the student decide if they want to sign up and test for their next belt and tests are held every 3 to 4 months. Some instructors will wait until the student wants to test and says so, I once briefly attended such a place. Some instructors will hand out belts and ranks if you pay them enough money and that is what I would call a McDojo and in my opinion such places are not worth going to. Regardless of whatever system the sensai uses, its important that the student knows what they need to do to get to the next belt up to and including black belt. If a student has gone awhile without the sensai telling him he could test than the student should know why they are not being called up to test and what they need to fix or work on. In my dojo, when you fail a promotion test they tell you why you failed and what you need to work on and that's how it should be in every system. If its a system where the sensai has to tell the student they can test for the next belt before the student can test, than the student should know what they need to do to meet the sensai's standards for the next belt and how to bring themselves up to par. The student should know what they need to do for every belt including the black belt. There is no reason why the student shouldn't have such information.

I agree; instructors should set clear goals for their students to meet and should be clear about what a grading will include. I give my students a test syllabus prior to grading.

Oh, and not to nitpick you, but sensei is sensei, not sensai.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I think of it like this, lets say you're using a car to get to a destination. The destination might be black belt or any belt in the martial arts or it might be a more abstract goal in the martial arts. The sensai controls the wheel, he steers the car in the right direction. The student would be the engine, he provides the movement, and the hard work and effort to get the car to where it needs to go. That is how it should be when a student is striving for a certain belt level such as black belt, or anything else in the martial arts.

 

[Cirdan]

And yet, that's pretty close to the method that all Primary and Secondary schools use in the developed world. The student shows up to class, the teacher instructs, then the student takes a test, usually with little to no input from the teacher as to whether or not the student is "ready."

Ask yourself what is the point, the purpose behind the test? Obviously to ensure that the student has a working knowledge of some given skill and information set and can perform at some given level of expertise. Sometimes, it's important to the participants that the student be tested "under stress." Now, look around at all the various training programs testing physical skills and information from around the world and across disciplines. Look at everything from ASE (automobile mechanics) to Medical certifications (Doctor, Nurse, etc.) to computer technology (CompTIA, MCS[P/A/E], RHC[A/E], etc.) to legal (Lawyer, Paralegal, etc.) to college & university. What you see is a variety of training and testing methods. In some cases the student has no choice when to take tests and must meet a deadline to test, pass or fail. Failure means taking the test again, maybe repeating the curriculum. In some cases the student may take all, some, or only the final certification test at their discretion, with any input from the instructor being at the student's discretion as well to heed or not. And there are many variation between. All of them are proven to work, to produce capable graduates with serviceable skills.

If all of these various methods can work for other skills instruction, then it can work for martial arts too. It is entirely possible to run a martial arts school like a regular primary school where the students have a curriculum that they must complete and then, with no discretion at all from the instructor or the student, the student takes a test at a given time. Success or failure could determine whether or not the student must repeat the curriculum.

It is entirely possible to run a martial arts school like a Microsoft Certified Professional program where the instructor teaches the required information and the student decides when he wants to take a test. The test may be performed on site or the student may even have to go to a third party to take the test.

It is entirely possible to teach martial arts in the old European "Apprenticeship" model with the student passing from Apprentice, to Journeyman, to Master. In fact, martial arts instructors in England used almost exactly that method during the Tudor period with the Company of Maisters. Students would petition to join, train for no less than 7 years, then would be required to request permission to "Play the Prize" which, if granted, included posting an open challenge to any and all other members in the Company. They would be judged by a panel of instructors based on their performance. 7 years minimum from Scholar to Free Scholar. 7 or more from Free Scholar to Provost. Provost to Master, if ever, another 7+ years. And the student would decide if he thought he was ready to Play the Prize but had to ask permission from the Master, who could give or withhold the permission. (Students would also be required to buy, out of pocket, the challenge hand-bills and post them around the town and in nearby locals).

Of course, rank-by-immediate-award (Batsugun) still happens occasionally in some arts such as Judo and is (or was) quite common in some BJJ schools; when you can "hang with" the next rank, then you achieve the next rank.

Stop thinking so narrowly. Just because some other school does grading differently from how you are familiar with it, doesn't mean it's wrong. It's how they do it. Results are what matters. If, in the end, the student is transmitted and retains the requisite knowledge then their method works, regardless of how much input the student has on when he attempts to grade.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

You will just have to excuse my narrow way of thinking then. While I am familiar with many very different ways of testing (or not testing) for rank I do believe the one discussed in this thread raises certain questions.
As an instructor I certainly know the level of my students. Letting someone test by actively signing up (and pay a fee for doing so) when I know this person WILL fail is simply something I wouldn`t do. At worst it means a huge waste of people`s time, money plus not all students take failing a test (potentially horribly) that well. Shouldn`t the student at the very least be warned that she/he is not there yet?

 

[Cirdan]

I think of it like this, lets say you're using a car to get to a destination. The destination might be black belt or any belt in the martial arts or it might be a more abstract goal in the martial arts. The sensai controls the wheel, he steers the car in the right direction. The student would be the engine, he provides the movement, and the hard work and effort to get the car to where it needs to go. That is how it should be when a student is striving for a certain belt level such as black belt, or anything else in the martial arts.

I would say any student past raw beginner needs to be more than the engine.

 

[MJS]

It isn't what I would do, but so long as paying doesn't guarantee passage, I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. Drivers license tests, SATs, and essentially any athletic tryout amount to testing at a scheduled time. People participate hoping to pass the test, score highly so as to enhance their chances at college entrance, or to make the cut respectively.

Points taken. When I took the test for my DL, I had to attend a certain number of classes, a certain number of hours of behind the wheel driving, etc, before the actual test was scheduled. It wasn't up to me, it was up to the inst. I never did the SATs, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd imagine if your score wasn't high enough, it wouldn't be worth applying for a school such as Harvard. I'd imagine they'd laugh you out the door, no?

At this point, we don't even know what the testing fees are, or if there are any (I think the OP mentioned that there is a fee).

True.

On a side note, I notice that people tend to cry McDojo or are dismissive anytime a grading practice deviates from what they are accustomed to. The comment about "what do you expect from an art where it only takes six years to fourth dan" is dismissive; the poster indicated that he's accustomed to second dan students having something along the lines of three decades in, which in most kyu/dan systems is enough time for a hachidan. Others say that a less than four year TKD student isn't a "real blackbelt," or that TKD schools that promote to black belt in less time are belt factories, ignoring that in Korea, the nation of origin of the art, it only takes one year.

The standards that such posters hold up are fine and I have no criticism of them. But those posters are judging other schools by what they're accustomed to rather than on what is reasonable or what is normative for the art in question.

This is probably very true. What's interesting, to me anyways, is that you have some arts that tend to draw people who're belt hungry, and want, want, want, while others join a school in which the time standards are known to take very long. Sure, there're some rare gems in BJJ, but it would seem to me, that the majority of BJJ schools, don't hand out rank every week. I'm sorry, but for me, the thought of seeing someone get a BB after a year of training or a 13yr old 2nd or 3rd degree is laughable and quite frankly, a joke. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure there're many that share the same views.

 

[MJS]

When somebody gets denied acceptance at Harvard or any other university they don't get laughed out the door or majorly embarrassed, usually they just get a card in the mail telling them they're not accepted. When people fail belt tests at my dojo they don't get laughed at or embarrassed and while they might be disappointed or let down because they failed, they're not made fun of for it and they usually learn from their failures.

That was simply a figure of speech. No, I doubt the school will send a letter saying, "HA! YOU SUCK!!!!". However, my point was simply....the teacher, not the student, is IMO, better suited to decide when someone is ready to test.

The problem with the instructor deciding when a student can test, especially if its a large dojo with lots of students is that it would be really hard if not impossible for an instructor to keep track of every student's progress. Imagine if you were running a dojo, you have over 100 students, and you have to know by heart where every student's progress level is and in addition to that it keeps changing as students gain progress as they keep working at it. That's why students should choose if they want to sign up for an up coming promotion exam, A sensai could not keep track of everybody.

Sorry, but I'm going to agree with Dirty Dog on this and raise the BS flag! That is the most crazy thing I've heard!

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Points taken. When I took the test for my DL, I had to attend a certain number of classes, a certain number of hours of behind the wheel driving, etc, before the actual test was scheduled.

Which raises the question of whether the students are applying to test based on their own feelings of readiness or if they have objective standards (study hours, knowledge of specific techniques, etc.) which they can can look at to know if they've met the requirements they need to meet in order to have a reasonable chance of success.

Which may actually be the case in this school.

 

[lklawson]

Shouldn`t the student at the very least be warned that she/he is not there yet?

Personally, I would like that, yes. Nevertheless, the fact is that doing it thusly is a common method of instruction and testing in other educational disciplines. In high school, would you have been able to escape a test merely because both you and your teacher knew you were going to fail it?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Which raises the question of whether the students are applying to test based on their own feelings of readiness or if they have objective standards (study hours, knowledge of specific techniques, etc.) which they can can look at to know if they've met the requirements they need to meet in order to have a reasonable chance of success.

Durn good point. SAT's and the like have defined curriculums which the students know before hand, study guides, and practice tests. While it is up to the student to decide when/if they will take the test, they are provided with every tool to ensure they know the likelihood of success and to what degree.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[MJS]

Which raises the question of whether the students are applying to test based on their own feelings of readiness or if they have objective standards (study hours, knowledge of specific techniques, etc.) which they can can look at to know if they've met the requirements they need to meet in order to have a reasonable chance of success.

Which may actually be the case in this school.

IMO, if we were going the route of letting them test based on their feelings, wouldn't it still be a good idea to at least have the inst check out the material prior to test date? Furthermore, I'd say if this was allowed, then technically the student could test every month and potentially pass. If its the latter, I'd think that a teacher would still be looking at them at some point to see if they were meeting those requirements.

 

[Cirdan]

Personally, I would like that, yes. Nevertheless, the fact is that doing it thusly is a common method of instruction and testing in other educational disciplines. In high school, would you have been able to escape a test merely because both you and your teacher knew you were going to fail it?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

If testing in high school included signing up myself, paying a fee and performing in front of a board with other students and a crowd watching and even filming the event, then I am sure my old high school teacher would have advised me not to test if he was sure I was going to fail.