Should the Govt. License MA Instructors?

Bill Mattocks said:
The states and counties license and regulate restaurants and barbershops. I fail to see the dire consequences you predict, and in fact, they seem to do a pretty good job.

I think people are seeing 'Big Brother' in places where he's not hanging around. Take a look at the state license of the next doctor you visit. Aren't you glad he's got one? Would you prefer he watched a doctor DVD and then operated on your bum knee?
Click to expand...
What dire consequences? I didn't predict any consequences. Nor did I mention big brother or allude to it.

I did say that the government is generally incompetent. I did not say that they shouldn't regulate anything. I'm just averse to my tax dollars being wasted on an unnecessary regulatory body that would most likely be ill equiped and ill informed to do a decent job.

Though I referrenced the feds, I've seen plenty of examples of state, county, and city stupidity. Just looking at the self defense laws of some states does not inspire me to trust them in regulating anything of a martial nature.

I did like an earlier poster's idea (yours?) of licensing the facility and requiring it to meet certain criteria; that doesn't require a new regulating agency or education of state employees in the peculiars of martial arts.

Daniel
 
Kreth said:
The problem I see is that government licensing would require some sort of regulatory board. So who sits on that board? "Well, this guy has 25 successful schools, he must be an expert in the field." And BANG, the licensing decisions are being handled by a bunch of McDojo operators. No kids program, no license. No black belt club, no license. "What? You grade people when you think they're ready and not every 6 months?" No license.
Click to expand...
I don't know that this would be the case. I'd be more concerned with a government agency saying that "this is a martial art and this is not". I'd also be more concerned with appointments being made based on rtf's, not an uncommon thing in politics.

Generally, I find that the less government involvement in anything the better. Not always, but generally. The government has its hand out all the time and often the very people who the government is supposed to be regulating are putting dollars into that hand. Thus government regulation is often joke.

Daniel
 
I think there is some general confusion here between federal and everything else (state, county, municipal, etc). Most licensing is local, not federal.

Second, I think people are confusing licensing with regulation. Licensing does not imply controlling how an art is taught. Regulation may.

A more precise question might have been, "Should state or local governments license (not regulate) martial arts instruction?"

I think most of the answers given thus far have had more to do with people's opinions on how well (or badly) the federal government does at running operations. This may be true - but it rather misses the mark.
 
Sandstorm said:
The system you have obviously works to a point. But then it hits that point, and all over the place you have these 'belt factories' which are very very rare over here.

In a way, I wish we had the same laws as you with regards to licencing, because it can be tedious making sure all your paperwork is in order if you want to do a seminar or some such. It would be nice to just advertise the event and hope people come through the door. Sounds fantastic really.

This is a really fascinating insight that I never knew anything about before. Really interesting to see how different countries operate.:)

Kind regards
John
Click to expand...

I guess it comes down to "pick your poison". Do you want freedom from excessive government oversight, incompetent bureaucratic intrusion, and all the accompanying headaches... or do you want to put up with no restraint on all the frauds, belt-factories and bozos we see all to often.

It's interesting to see how people in different places handle this issue. As for myself, I'll put up with the bozos, and take the responsibility on myself for finding out about my instructors' qualifications. The guys I train with right now probably wouldn't even bother to teach if they had to go through all the bureaucratic hassles of a government licensing system. And the bozos and frauds usually manage to weasel their way around the rules, anyway. Just my perspective.
 
In the Netherlands, you don't have to be licensed to teach, but there is an optional licensing track. It's meant to provide instructors with the basic knowledge about the law, health-related things (correct stretching/warming up etc. etc.) and teaching theory. There are two parts - A1, which is the 'general' part and A2, which is determined by your organisation. So A1 consists of lectures and tests and A2 is usually supervised teaching etc.
If you complete this education, you can prove that you underwent a background check and that you can safely teach people from all ages.

So I don't really understand the problems that people are having with government licensing...
 
Xue Sheng said:
No where in either of those documents is the term License used
Click to expand...

Good point!

My bad. The major difference between licensing and requiring registration is that a license can be revoked, preventing the business from operating. The registration simply sets forth requirements (mostly regarding contracts) and establishes criminal penalties for failing to behave in the manner set forth by law. Thanks for catching that.
 
I can see licensing a commercial dojo similar to a gym, requiring training in CPR and first aid, etc; but I don't see any equitable way to license instructors. If you (general you) don't know my system, how do you know whether I'm qualified to teach it? :idunno:
 
I am pretty much just answering off the original posters comments, so forgive me if this has already been answered.

First I think government is way too big already in the United States, and way to invasive in our everyday lives.

that being said there is alot of horrible martial arts schools and instructors in the United States. I have no diea how it is elsewhere, I imagine it is probably fairly similar. I would love to see the actual regulations that are in place across the pond and see what they do.

The biggest problem I see would be the inclination for the regulations to be on whats included in the curriculum, and I think that would be a really bad idea. I do however think it might make sense to require Martial Arts instructors to have a certain leveal of knowledge on the general things that pertain to all martial arts... things like..

Anatomy
First Aid
General Physics
Legal issues, local, state and federal level

I would hate to see it become a requirement to get a Martial Arts degree in College to be able to teach martial arts, but I do think that a program somewhere similar in depth to what Personal Trainers go through would be a good thing.

Unfortunately from what I have seen of government though I see nothing but the tendency to overtake every aspect being too great a risk, and the chances that it gets messed up, or completely out of wack too great to risk.
So I would have to agree with all those that are saying something along the lines of

HELL NO

LOL
 
Also note that this has nothing to do with the instruction of martial arts or even instructors of martial arts. ;)

The law was originally written for health clubs, a recent (within the last 2 years) decision was made to classify martial arts schools as health clubs and therefore require the school to register with the state and follow certain regulations if they offer student contracts. In other words, the registration affects how money changes hands...and not much else.
 
geezer said:
I guess it comes down to "pick your poison". Do you want freedom from excessive government oversight, incompetent bureaucratic intrusion, and all the accompanying headaches... or do you want to put up with no restraint on all the frauds, belt-factories and bozos we see all to often.

It's interesting to see how people in different places handle this issue. As for myself, I'll put up with the bozos, and take the responsibility on myself for finding out about my instructors' qualifications. The guys I train with right now probably wouldn't even bother to teach if they had to go through all the bureaucratic hassles of a government licensing system. And the bozos and frauds usually manage to weasel their way around the rules, anyway. Just my perspective.
Click to expand...

That's cool, it is a case of each to there own. As to the 'government beurocracy, the government itself doesn't get involved. It's Martial Arts governing bodies that take on instructors with merit and references. You have no references or proof of qualifications etc, you don't teach, simple as that. If you don't have an association banner on your paperwork/advertising etc etc, you will not get students. No student=no classes=no point even trying to set up a school without credentials.
 
Bill Mattocks said:
Connecticut licenses martial arts studio:

http://www.ct-clic.com/TradeLicenses/categorySearch.asp?catID=390
Click to expand...

Appears to be licensing the facility not the teacher

Carol Kaur said:
Also note that this has nothing to do with the instruction of martial arts or even instructors of martial arts. ;)

The law was originally written for health clubs, a recent (within the last 2 years) decision was made to classify martial arts schools as health clubs and therefore require the school to register with the state and follow certain regulations if they offer student contracts. In other words, the registration affects how money changes hands...and not much else.
Click to expand...

Thanks Carol.... But I still don't trust you with a MagLite :D
 
Xue Sheng said:
Appears to be licensing the facility not the teacher
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. I mentioned a few posts previous that I thought a more appropriate question was "Should state or local governments license (not regulate) martial arts instruction?"

I am not, as I said, in favor of licensing at all at this time. However, I wanted to correct some of what appeared to be radical misunderstandings about professional licensing systems. I'm paranoid - but some of the response I've read are, in my opinion, way out there in terms of fearing Big Brother.

My point was, and is, that lots of professions are licensed. Usually at the state or local levels, and most are set up in the interest of public safety. They're not about 'big government' or power over people, more about protecting the community from the unscrupulous, unqualified, or dangerous.

Not every profession needs to be licensed, and I agree that martial arts is one that probably does not (at this time). But it can be done, it can be done effectively, and when it is done, it isn't the horror-show government takeover or boondoggle it seems some folks here fear.
 
Bill Mattocks said:
I think there is some general confusion here between federal and everything else (state, county, municipal, etc). Most licensing is local, not federal.

Second, I think people are confusing licensing with regulation. Licensing does not imply controlling how an art is taught. Regulation may..
Click to expand...

Licensing is a form of passive regulation. That and another source of income for the state, which already takes enough of our money, thank you very much.

By passive regulation, I mean that a license would mean that

A. you need the license to either teach or..

B. own the school.

C. to have the license, criterial must be met, criteria that may or may not be reasonable and appropriate.

Bill Mattocks said:
A more precise question might have been, "Should state or local governments license (not regulate) martial arts instruction?"

I think most of the answers given thus far have had more to do with people's opinions on how well (or badly) the federal government does at running operations. This may be true - but it rather misses the mark.
Click to expand...
While I agree with you, this creates another level of state, county, or municiple bureaucracy that must be paid for by tax dollars. Or it places the duty into the hands of an existing bureaucracy.

In either case, you'll have licensing standards being made by people who really don't have the qualifications to do so. What criteria would you use?

Is the building licensed?

Is the owner licensed?

Do the individual instructors need to be licensed?

If yes to that last one, then

Is it merely license saying that the state is aware that you're teaching some sort of MA or...

Would a class be required, along with a requisite test (like the driver's license).

Is there a minimum age?

Is there a maximum age?

Would only certain arts be recognized?

That last question would be my biggest concern.
Edit:
In any case, I'm not trying to pick at you.:)

I'm posing the questions as one who live in a place where studios don't need anything more than whatever licensing a normal retail business or fitness center would need. And since the thread title is asking about instructors, these are the questions I'd be asking if it were being considered in Maryland.

On the flip side, I do agree that there can be positives to licensing either the building or the individual instructor.

Daniel
 
Last edited:
Just a funny conversation that ran through my head after reading this thread:

A man walks into the MAVA (Martial arts Verification Administration). He hands his application to the lady behind the window.

"You can't get a license because that isn't a martial art, sir," says lady behind the window.

"But maam, I've been studing Shim Gumdo under Chang Sik Kim for the past twenty years in Boston at the headquarters," responds teacher.

"Is this some form of Karate?" she asks, trying to help the man.

"No, its a sword art." he replies.

"So its Kendo?" she asks.

"No, that's Japanese." he says.

"I thought you said that it was from Boston." she replies.

"No, it was founded in 1971 in Korea, but the headquarters are in Boston," he replies. "Anyway, we don't fence."

"Korea! Haedong Gumdo?" she asks.

"No, that actually was influenced by Shim Gumdo." he replies, now frustrated.

"How can that be?" She asks. "According to the FAQ sheet, HDGD is the martial art of the Samurang of the ancient Silla Kingdom."

"No, no, Haedong Gumdo was founded in 1982." he says snappily.

"In Boston?" she asks.

"No, that's Shim Gumdo!" he replies.

"Sorry sir, but that isn't a martial art. It's not on the list." She replies.

The man thinks for a moment.

"What if I called it Yoga with a sword?" he asks.

"Ah, that's on the list. John Basedow did a video fitness series on that as part of his 'Six pack abs part 50.'

"Okay" says the man. "Yoga with a sword it is."

That is the sort of worst case scenario I envision when I think of government involvement in the martial arts.

Daniel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Budo Spirit: Heroes Emerge Daily - Part 3

Previous Thread

Splits

Next Thread

Similar threads

AceHBK
Special forces MA???
Replies
14
Views
1K
Cujo
C
M
Thousands In Favor Of Undocumented Immegrants To Get License
Replies
5
Views
854
ballen0351
B
Matt Stone
State of the MA Union
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Matt Stone
Matt Stone
skribs
Is it a bad idea to teach kids wrist grab escapes?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
Razznik
Razznik
G
Has your instructor ever injured a student?
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
fangjian
fangjian

Latest Discussions

Back
Top