PDA

View Full Version : When to admit defeat.



Smart Alex
28th May 2005, 00:52
From a purely academic standpoint, as a teacher, at what point do you give up on training someone? When do you stop and say "Martial Arts isn't for everyone" and move on to dealing with other students? (or at least admit that you can't train that individual)

(I understand that the attitude "Martial Arts aren't for everyone" is not a popular one, so if we could move past that or at least proceed from that standpoint and accept it for the time being, I would appreciate it.)

Sharp Phil
28th May 2005, 01:04
I don't think a good teacher ever gives up on a student who wants to train and who has the drive to keep at it. I think most people who don't experience success or progress in their training eventually give up of their own accord. In those rare cases in which someone's a total clod but is still devoted to training, he or she will make slow progress -- and that should be enough for both parties.

I think a teacher who just gives up on a student who's trying is doing them both a disservice and doesn't have the right attitude.

Sochin
28th May 2005, 03:08
What phlying phil said - if I had gottten here first, I'd have written that and he would have seconded me!!!!

Brian Owens
28th May 2005, 07:54
I agree with the above.

On the other hand, if it seems that the student isn't trying, or that his reasons for studying don't match the teacher's direction, then it may be time to cut him loose.

How to do that? Well, it isn't easy, especially for a teacher who cares about his students. But sometimes it has to be done.

You can simply stop teaching him, and tell him he needs to continue refining his basics. Eventually he'll quit.

You can call him aside and tell him frankly that you believe his goals may be better met somewhere else.

Or you can continue as is, and hope that something changes.

No easy choices there, but it's a start.

kakuma
28th May 2005, 08:08
In my experience I have seen people develop slower than others. This is normal. Or it can be sometimes due to lack of motivation or not seeing the big picture (for lack of a better term). In the latter case you step up the training. You demonstrate or show them what they have to look forward to.

It gives them a moment to really see what they are training for and you will notice a different mindset in learning. Most martial arts is not physical perse. But if the mindset of an individual is prepped for achieving an ultimate goal, instruction on your part and training on the students part becomes less difficult.

Hope that makes sense.

Smart Alex
28th May 2005, 18:49
Just for the record. I wasn't refering to students who have the drive to train and improve, even if they are incredibly slow learners, if their mind and heart is in to the training they will make progress (no matter how minimal) and that is enough.
I was refering to people who pay lip service while they are in class, but never practice when at home. So the next time they are in class you are fixing the same mistakes over and over again (and not due to any lack of physical ability on their part just no practice). I don't know what their motivation is to show up to class. But training surely doesn't seem to be in their heart.

Trevor Johnson
28th May 2005, 21:58
Mostly we keep them "outside the gate." They learn the same stuff until they get bored. Or, if that doesn't work, we open up a little bit on them. We don't train very nice stuff, and most of it's really not tournament based. When they realize that we're not doing play-pretty stuff, that there's real violence and a lot of pain involved, they leave. Mind you, if someone's weaker but dedicated, we're willing to titrate the amount of force that we use to their level. If we're trying to get rid of someone who just isn't trying, we push a bit harder than that.

Smart Alex
29th May 2005, 00:50
Seems reasonable.

Rogier
30th May 2005, 08:15
I think a teacher who just gives up on a student who's trying is doing them both a disservice and doesn't have the right attitude.

I think you need to look at this case-by-case. Why would you refer to it as giving up on a student? Sometimes it is better for the person to say no even though they are very willing to train.

I had my first "talk" with a student about this a few weeks ago. He was a special case, mentally and physically not a 100%. This person was extremely willing to train, the problem was that you could show him something 50 times and still nothing would change.

I actually wouldn't have minded the slow progress if it wasn't for his physique. Almost no muscle tissue and he seemed to have almost no motor skills. I decided to give up on him purely to save him from harm. One mistake in throwing this person and he'd surely have broken something.

In the conversation I told him my reasons for turning him down and advised him to find a non-contact sport. He took the news very well and was actually happy about the fact that I was honest with him.

Sharp Phil
30th May 2005, 15:20
had my first "talk" with a student about this a few weeks ago. He was a special case, mentally and physically not a 100%. This person was extremely willing to train, the problem was that you could show him something 50 times and still nothing would change.


Is his life less valuable than someone else's? Does he have less right to defend himself than someone with greater physical and mental ability?

kakuma
30th May 2005, 16:10
I have to agree with Sharp Phil. Sounds like everyone who wants to usher someone out of the door because he/she is not learning in the manner that they desire is in need of patience. It also shows lack of maturity.

I feel everyone has the ability to learn. but not everyone is qualified to teach. If they are willing to pay for instruction, no matter what the style, you have an obligation to teach no matter what the learning curve is and no matter how long it takes for them to learn.

All instructors have a responsibility and 80% of what students are not getting is usually the instructors fault. When I see flaws even in my most senior students I have to evaluate these key things

1. If there is something that I am not instructing them properly in

2. Am I missing key points for the students to understand,

3. If he/she is just not getting it evaluate why.

Obviously with beginners there will be some exceptions but the principles are still the same. I just had 2 new students join our group though they were not moving perfectly I was able to see natural ability in there movement.

I have a senior student who does not have natural ability and does not get it all the time. But he works twice as hard as any one else to get his techniques down. If he is still not getting it I have to change the way that I am explaining the technique, maybe even break it down for him step by step until he gets. (patience is truly a virtue). Now he is the highest ranked and one of my most senior students in the dojo.

There is more to instructing a student that monkey see monkey do, which appears to be common in most martial arts venues.

Sharp Phil
30th May 2005, 20:56
There are two extremes when it comes to students:

1) Those who earnestly desire to train and who put in the time and effort.

2) Those who say they wish to train, but who can't be bothered.

Any teacher who tells the latter, "I could keep on taking your money, but that wouldn't be fair to either of us" is doing both student and teacher a favor and I have no problem with that.

Any teacher who tells the former, "Billy, I know you want to train, but let's face it -- you're either too stupid or too uncoordinated ever to manage and you're holding the other students back, not to mention wasting a lot of my valuable time" is certainly within his rights as a teacher, but he's someone from whom I'd not wish to take classes in the first place.

There are plenty of elitists out there. Our choice then becomes -- do we wish to be identified among them?

Sharp Phil
30th May 2005, 21:56
I assume (and assert) nothing of the kind. The existence of other schools in a free market is irrelevant; that's not the point. I'm sorry if my statements make it more difficult to rationalize cutting loose a student who is trying, but who isn't as skilled or as intelligent as others at a given school. A teacher who is willing to give up on that student, to sweep him aside, to make him someone else's problem, doesn't have the right attitude to be a teacher.

Brian Owens
31st May 2005, 00:19
...If they are willing to pay for instruction, no matter what the style, you have an obligation to teach no matter what the learning curve is and no matter how long it takes for them to learn. ...
I do not agree with this at all.

A dojo is not a "public accomodation" that must accept all comers. A teacher has an obligation to his current students, and to all the students and teachers who have come before.

If a student or prospective student is not an asset to the dojo, then it may be that his or her membership should be discontinued or denied.

If a teacher chooses to open his school to all, that is his or her choice, but I do not believe it is an obligation that is incumbent on all dojo "no matter what the style."

Brian Owens
31st May 2005, 00:30
Is his life less valuable than someone else's? Does he have less right to defend himself than someone with greater physical and mental ability?
I don't think that is a fair categorization. Not accepting or keeping someone as a student isn't to say that they are less valued or have fewer rights; but it may be a recognition of reality.

No one would expect a person who is totally paralized from the waist down to be able to do a flying side kick, and wouldn't fault a teacher who didn't teach this person to do so. Not everyone has the same abilities or capabilities.

While most mental and physical disabilites are not so evident, the principle is the same. The "differently abled" student may have to look elsewhere for self defense training that is suited to his or her unique situation.

enbudo
31st May 2005, 03:18
Hi Everyone.

This is a great thread, and I've enjoyed the posts.

I don't think an instructor should ever "give up" on a student who is trying. As long as a student is giving the effort, I'll be there for them. However, there may come a point when an instructor realizes that there is, indeed a "fit" issue that needs to be dealt with. There's lots of room for "differently abled" students, but sometimes not quite enough room for a number of reasons.

I once had a student who really wanted to train, but she had VERY limited vision (legally blind) and all of the the spacial, depth-perception, and balance challenges that come along with such a condition. While I felt comfortable teaching her some basic self-defense techniques, integrating this student into my traditional karate classes was impossible -- at least for me. The student really needed one-on-one attention that can't be found in a traditional dojo. Rather than kicking the student out, I simply told her the truth: "I'm sorry, I just don't have the skills to teach you in this kind of environment."

I once (briefly) had a student who regularly took some pretty heavy anti-psychotic medication. He was very slow, very uncoordinated, and frankly, very intimidating to the other students. He was about 6' 4" and 250 lbs and couldn't distinguish between his left and his right. This, folks, was unsafe, and WAY out of my league. He only came to two classes, so I was spared from having to deal more directly with the situation. But whoa! what a challenge! Perhaps he recognized the "fit" issue on his own accord.

I think that students who are sincere but simply incapable will usually weed themselves out of the training. There's no shame in that. Now, students who simply don't try to improve -- meaning those who just show up and "put in their time" -- those students simply don't get the same level of attention as everyone else.

Thanks all,
Jason

Trevor Johnson
31st May 2005, 03:56
Oh, certain styles are far better for certain people. For people who have trouble learning stuff, though, the first thing to do is figure out why. Got one I train with who's a bit older and very stiff. Computer person who types all day. Got a lot of stress and a temper problem. Great guy, though. The stiffness and anxiety make him very clumsy. So, how to fix the problem? Can't do this in a large group, because it requires more personalized handling.

First thing my teacher did was take him and me and start doing balance drills with us, things he learned from his mom, who teaches ballet. Next, logwork, doing naihanchi and one-step sparring on a log, with steadily decreasing sizes and increasing heights. (When the penalty for loss of balance is going butt-first into a stream, you learn quick.) I also learned that part of his problem is he thinks too much, so what I generally do is attack him slowly so he learns a move and then push faster and faster and faster in a quick continuous stream so he doesn't have time to think about what he's doing. Result is good technique, and he's now walking along high logs without thinking about it. I'm frankly amazed at the progress he's made. Best part is, he doesn't realize how much progress he's made, we're waiting for him to notice. He's also relaxed a bit because the balancing's made him drop his shoulders.

So the moral of this little story is, for students who don't learn as fast, let teacher and seniors take them off by themselves sometimes and personalize the training to their flaws.

Rogier
31st May 2005, 07:26
Any teacher who tells the former, "Billy, I know you want to train, but let's face it -- you're either too stupid or too uncoordinated ever to manage and you're holding the other students back, not to mention wasting a lot of my valuable time" is certainly within his rights as a teacher, but he's someone from whom I'd not wish to take classes in the first place.


I think you're missing the point. As a teacher it is also your duty to protect your students. You cannot let someone who will break like a twig if he falls down just a little to hard join in sports where there is a lot of contact.

You have a very nice idealistic view, it is however not very practical. For the case I mentioned there was no way to avoid danger for this person.

I also have two other examples for you:

1. Judo - epileptic

We had a student in the judo group who was epileptic. He'd have a lot of seizures and at the strangest moments. Can you see the danger to the person here?

2. Any contact martial art - heart condition

Would you allow someone with a serious heart condition train even if his doctor advises against any physical activity?


Anyway I have exactly the opposite train of thought as you have Phil. I would not like to train with a teacher who is not willing to say to person: “For your own safety I'd advise you to take up another sport".

The safety of the student should come first, not the ego of the teacher in thinking he can train anyone/everyone not matter what their condition.

kakuma
31st May 2005, 07:51
A dojo is not a "public accomodation" that must accept all comers. A teacher has an obligation to his current students, and to all the students and teachers who have come before.
Then my personal opinion is that you should not be teaching. If it is not to accomadate every student or any student then I question your intentions of teaching. Is it for personal monetary gain (then this I can understand), or is it that you genuinely care for your students to learn budo to better themselves, others and their community. I think that we are being selfish and missing the point.


If a student or prospective student is not an asset to the dojo, then it may be that his or her membership should be discontinued or denied.
Unless the student is a danger to himself or others this is still not applicable. The original post did not state that that was or is an issue.


If a teacher chooses to open his school to all, that is his or her choice, but I do not believe it is an obligation that is incumbent on all dojo "no matter what the style."
I again reiterate that if that is the case you need to not be teaching. Any instructor who opens a dojo offering instruction openly has an obligation if they are accepting dues/fees per month from that student for quality instruction.

Please note teacher and student relationships are a two way street. We have an obligation and a responsibility as well as the student. It seems that martial arts has become self centered and a reevaluation of why we are training budo and teaching budo needs to be evaluated.

kakuma
31st May 2005, 07:58
I also have two other examples for you:
1. Judo - epileptic

We had a student in the judo group who was epileptic. He'd have a lot of seizures and at the strangest moments. Can you see the danger to the person here?

2. Any contact martial art - heart condition

Would you allow someone with a serious heart condition train even if his doctor advises against any physical activity?


Hello Rogier,

I think we are still missing the point of the original post. These are totally different issues and far from what Phil or myself are trying to state.

If in fact someone had these conditions and your particular style would add stress to these conditions then the student would in fact be a danger to himself and/or to others. This is not the case according to the original post.

Rogier
31st May 2005, 08:06
Hello Rogier,

I think we are still missing the point of the original post. These are totally different issues and far from what Phil or myself are trying to state.

If in fact someone had these conditions and your particular style would add stress to these conditions then the student would in fact be a danger to himself and/or to others. This is not the case according to the original post.

I'd like to wait for Phil to comment as well, I read Phil's post as being a direct response to my first posting.

Trevor Johnson
31st May 2005, 17:16
Then my personal opinion is that you should not be teaching. If it is not to accomadate every student or any student then I question your intentions of teaching. Is it for personal monetary gain (then this I can understand), or is it that you genuinely care for your students to learn budo to better themselves, others and their community. I think that we are being selfish and missing the point.

What about the koryu? Very closed shop, and with a lot of good reasons.



Unless the student is a danger to himself or others this is still not applicable. The original post did not state that that was or is an issue.

I tend to disagree. There are other reasons to nix someone. Our sensei's motive for teaching is to train motivated and skilled students. Someone who can pick up the skills and is willing to train hard is fine. Doesn't matter as much how quickly they pick up the skills. He's also willing to train the student individually to fit lessons to their needs. However, there have been students that we nixed. Learning technique is not enough. The martial arts (and marital arts :D ) have an ethical/social component as well. Any of the ryu/do schools need to train this. People who can't internalize the ethics are not people we want to train. As one example, people who can't shed their own macho ideals are hard to work with. They tend to go harder/faster all the time and miss the subtleties that we use. They are also a pain in the butt because, willing or not, they don't listen.

Then there're people with disabilities. One student I knew was autistic. Could perform techniques, could quote martial literature chapter and verse, but was useless otherwise. He couldn't understand the rest of it. Couldn't tell a realistic technique from a bad one, couldn't apply anything. We raised the training to a level he wasn't willing to deal with, and he left, and we breathed a great sigh of relief. Now, he was not a danger to others, he was unable to hurt most of us at all. He wasn't a danger to himself, unless he actually believed in his own prowess and picked fights, and that's actually something that we train out of people quickly. He just couldn't learn. Anything.

Martial arts aren't for everyone, especially the more violent/less sporting arts. My group's not so concerned about physical weakness, we can fix that in time. We're concerned about mental incapacities far more. Some people just can't internalize violence, and want to train prettier, flashier, less real stuff. (Tae-Bo, anyone?) Fine, but they're going to do it somewhere else.


Please note teacher and student relationships are a two way street. We have an obligation and a responsibility as well as the student. It seems that martial arts has become self centered and a reevaluation of why we are training budo and teaching budo needs to be evaluated.

When, though, does that mean changing what we teach? Look you, the only martial arts that I know of with really enormous classes who DO accept everyone are the ones who use them as cash cows. They dumb the arts down until the dried husk of them is all that's left. That's the lowest common denominator. That's what ANYONE can do! Not everyone can do the real stuff, and I think pretending such is foolish. Most people want to believe that there's magic in martial arts, that they can somehow use those empty techniques to fight. It's hard work, and painful, and most people want nothing to do with it once they realize that.
Now, understand, if someone is physically unsuitable, we're going to train them to make up for these deficiencies if at all physiologically possible. Those we can fix, given time and patience. It's the ones who are mentally unsuitable that sometimes need to be let go. Mostly what we do with people is show them what we are, honestly and openly, and do that early, in the first year. If they stay past that, they're generally worth something, and their mental blocks/issues can be mitigated or overcome.

kakuma
31st May 2005, 17:59
What about the koryu? Very closed shop, and with a lot of good reasons.
I study a koryu martial art and this is not the case. I travel back and forth from Japan on a regular basis now. I certainly have not found this to be true. The Kancho of our school is very patient and willing to teach those who are wanting to learn.

I heard him make a statement to a student once.... "When I first saw you, I couldn't stand to look at your taijutsu. It hurt my eyes. Now, (years later) it is ok."

This student endured to become what he is now in budo. Point is Sensei never gave up.


The martial arts (and marital arts ) have an ethical/social component as well. Any of the ryu/do schools need to train this. People who can't internalize the ethics are not people we want to train. As one example, people who can't shed their own macho ideals are hard to work with. They tend to go harder/faster all the time and miss the subtleties that we use. They are also a pain in the butt because, willing or not, they don't listen.
Once again according to the original post this is not the case. If ethics were involved or were an issue, then I could understand. But, this seems to be an issue where intructor/instructors feel they are not learning fast enough or in a manner that pleases them and discarding them based on that.


When, though, does that mean changing what we teach?
I never stated that they way an instructor teaches should be changed. I did however state that there are some instructors who should not be teaching. I did state that we may have, as instructors, weakness in our teaching or transmission of information to our students. When we become so self centered that we do not work on our own weaknesses, wether training and/or teaching, then we have become egotistical and can no longer grow.


It's hard work, and painful, and most people want nothing to do with it once they realize that.
Let them realize that quite on their own merit. I have found in my experience that not all martial arts or martial arts styles are for everyone. Therfore, the student most form his own conclusion and not hte teacher. If you train uncompromised, without dumbing anything down and the student finds value then he will endure. I don't believe in (for lack of a better term) McDojo's. People spend money and they learn nothing. I do believe that with commitment and dedication with both teacher and student that anyone can learn martialarts.

These are of course my opinions and revelations through my years and experience as both a student and a teacher. They are expressely my own and share them only as part of this discussion. They are not an attempt for anyone to agree with me, but only to look at different options.

Sharp Phil
31st May 2005, 18:13
One either offers martial arts and/or self-defense training to the public, or one offers that training to those one selects as worthy. Certainly the latter will produce much more accomplished technicians. I would rather train with the former because I dislike elitism.

Trevor Johnson
31st May 2005, 19:18
One either offers martial arts and/or self-defense training to the public, or one offers that training to those one selects as worthy. Certainly the latter will produce much more accomplished technicians. I would rather train with the former because I dislike elitism.

I prefer to think that we help them self-select. If they really want to train, and they're sure they want to train with us, and we don't think they'll go out and use the stuff we teach them in a way that seriously conflicts with the ethics we try to teach, sure, g/a. If they physically have trouble, we'll nurse them through it. If they cannot handle the mental side of it, we may ask them to leave. In most cases where they need to go, the mental problems make them "a danger to others." We don't like teaching bullies, because training the bully out of people doesn't always work. And a pathological sadist with martial training is not good. With the autistic guy, it was that there was nothing we could teach him. He couldn't learn it. Period. We tried for a while, and there was nothing we could do. He was like a huge library, but he couldn't synthesize the information, and once he'd learned something, it was gospel. You couldn't say, it's not that simple, there's other concerns, there's more to learn here. It always had to be simple.

Now I'm sorry, but if I literally cannot teach you anything, I think it is also my responsibility to get you to realize that, or if you cannot realize that, get you to move on anyway. We prefer to have the student make the decision without our having to say anything. It's much easier for them, easier for us too. In the autistic's case, he was unstable enough that, while he was no danger to others, (seriously, he couldn't apply any techniques, and he would get killed in a fight) telling him to leave directly might cause problems with him. So we helped him make his own decision to leave.

Same with bullies and sadists, we prefer to make class "boring," that is, less physically stimulating and more mentally stimulating, (teaching softer skills tends to help) for a while until they leave. Those who'll stay, know the value of those skills. Those who leave generally don't see the applicability of those skills in hurting people, so they go. Since those types hold grudges easily, we prefer, again, for them to make the decision. We don't chuck them out on their ear. Only one I can recall that we asked to leave directly, and that person was a walking disaster, mental and ethically, being among other things a sadist, a near pathological liar, and a few other issues I don't know the terminology for. (I know some of us are "sadists" by training, it's required for teaching, as a certain masochism is required for training, in a sense, but with most of us, it's not pathological, it's learned, and held in check. We don't need to hurt others, except sometimes on the floor or in a fight, and we moderate that by training and etiquette. Those who have a pathological need for pain are different. )

Some might call that elitist, but I think it's more responsible than stringing someone along or teaching someone who intends to use their teaching in a way we strongly disagree with. We try to follow Funakoshi's statement that karate-do makes good civilians. That is, we don't attack people first, try for peace, and only use violence when necessary. We're not soldiers, and do not feel that acting like a soldier is a desirable trait in civilian society. That's got a place, but it's on the battlefield. If you don't believe in an ethical component for MA, you may disagree with this, but that's what we try to live up to.

Brian Owens
1st June 2005, 05:59
Then my personal opinion is that you should not be teaching. If it is not to accomadate every student or any student then I question your intentions of teaching. Is it for personal monetary gain (then this I can understand).
It is my personal opinion that someone who is willing to let anyone and everyone into his dojo needs to re-evaluate his intentions.

Someone who is teaching merely for "monetary gain" (or ego gratification) is the one more likely to "accomodate every student or any student", from what I have experienced.

kakuma
1st June 2005, 08:37
Mr. Owens the great thing about discussion forums isthat we are all entitled to our opinion.

It is my personal opinion that someone who is willing to let anyone and everyone into his dojo needs to re-evaluate his intentions.
My intention is to instruct anyone that is willing to learn. Exclusions include mental or physical handicaps that would endanger the student and/or his peers. Bullies and testosterone driven egomaniacs (NOTE: These types don't last long once they receive what they are trying to dish out.)

These were not outlined as an issue in the original post. I also made these points in earlier posts.


Someone who is teaching merely for "monetary gain" (or ego gratification) is the one more likely to "accomodate every student or any student", from what I have experienced.
I do not teach for monetary gain. Teaching is not my only source of income. As also stated in previous posts I do not run a McDojo.

I am not sure where the ego gratification lies in wanting to teach a willing student, who wants to better himself, his family and his community. It seems that your experiences have not been good ones. But it is important to evaluate ourselves every once in a while to ensure that we do not make the same or different mistakes that produce negative results.

Rogier
1st June 2005, 11:25
Mr. Owens the great thing about discussion forums isthat we are all entitled to our opinion.

My intention is to instruct anyone that is willing to learn. Exclusions include mental or physical handicaps that would endanger the student and/or his peers. Bullies and testosterone driven egomaniacs (NOTE: These types don't last long once they receive what they are trying to dish out.)

Now this I can agree to especially as you mention those exclusions.

This however makes me wonder; Phil, have you ever had a student with a mental or physical handicap?

Sharp Phil
1st June 2005, 12:49
I am nobody's teacher.

Brian Owens
1st June 2005, 13:24
...My intention is to instruct anyone that is willing to learn. Exclusions include mental or physical handicaps that would endanger the student and/or his peers. Bullies and testosterone driven egomaniacs (NOTE: These types don't last long once they receive what they are trying to dish out.)

These were not outlined as an issue in the original post. I also made these points in earlier posts. ...
My post wasn't directed at the original post in this thread, but at the post saying teachers have an obligation to teach anyone and everyone.

...I do not teach for monetary gain. Teaching is not my only source of income. As also stated in previous posts I do not run a McDojo. ...
Never said you did; I was speaking generally.

...I am not sure where the ego gratification lies in wanting to teach a willing student, who wants to better himself, his family and his community.
I don't either. Again, I was speaking generally about a teacher who would accept anyone as a student, and keep anyone as a student who wasn't an asset to the dojo.

...It seems that your experiences have not been good ones. ...
I have no idea where you got that impression. For the most part my experiences in the martial arts have been positive, and I have met some truly great teachers in my life (and only a few bad one).

dakotajudo
1st June 2005, 21:04
One either offers martial arts and/or self-defense training to the public, or one offers that training to those one selects as worthy. Certainly the latter will produce much more accomplished technicians. I would rather train with the former because I dislike elitism.

So you would accept lesser training (hence skill) so as to not appear elitist? Did you use the same logic in selecting a university? If you dislike elitism, I'd assume you went to community college.

I've been both a student and a teacher; and athlete and a coach. I've seen what one or two poorly motivated individuals can do to the group. I've seen how people who don't recognize (thus don't change) their own incompetence disrupt the dynamics of a dojo.

Maybe with some arts an instructor can get away with being less discriminatory, but others - well, you're training to be able to actually hurt other people. If the training is mostly forms, a poorly motivated or clumsy student doesn't present much of a danger. But when there's actual contact, trading throws or submission holds or randori, distraction or sloppiness can get someone hurt.

I simply will not allow someone who presents a danger to other students to train in my club. For that reason, I reserve the right to exclude anyone from training. I haven't exercised that right - I've had to comment on certai behaviors - but so far I've not kicked anybody out.

Probably wouldn't do it unilaterally; there would be discussion with the otheer members. But ultimately, it's my !!! on the line - I'm liable for what happens in the club.

Theorizing is all fine, but I've got dilemma now that is somewhat relevant. First off, I've got a small club, about 6 seniors and 4 juniors that are active. Three of the juniors are brothers - the youngest is six (maybe seven). He's the dilemma.

At times he's simply a distraction. We practice in a gymnastics studio - he runs onto the equipment, I have to tell him to get off (repeatedly), make him do pushups or situps when he leaves the mat area. While I'm doing that, I'm not paying attention to the rest of the group.

At other times, he a danger to himself. He's acting as uke, not paying attention, get's dropped on his head, starts crying, I have to check that he's OK.

So, I don't want to give up on him (obviously, he's still young), but, on the other hand, it's not fair to the others to allow him to train. The middle brother also acts up occasionally; I expect he would less so without the younger brother. On the other hand, the younger brother is the only one who matches up well, size-wise, with the middle brother.

With kids, it's a little different; you can assume they'll grow up. I've got a 15 year old who was a bit of a nuisance when he started, now he's handles most of the adults pretty easily. But what if they're twenty-something?

I did have one of those - doing wristlocks for ukemi drills, he was a little rough on his partner, using wristlocks during randori on people who hand't been taught wristlocks, didn't know when to back down during randori. Kinda rude. Problem corrected itself, though. He was playing with a yellow belt, didn't stop when the yellow belt eased up, knocked the yellow belt into some equipment. Yellow belt then proceeded to lay him out, twice in a row, with beautiful sasae-tsurikomi-ashi. Guy stopped coming after that.

Sharp Phil
1st June 2005, 21:10
So you would accept lesser training (hence skill) so as to not appear elitist?

How is a teacher who refuses to "give up" on a less talented student providing "lesser training" to his other students? I am not concerned with the aggregate skill level of the technicians produced by a school; I am concerned only with my own training.

The original post in this thread said nothing about a student who was mentally handicapped, suffering severe physical infirmity, or causing problems or danger to his fellow students, unless I misinterpreted its meaning. If we're going to keep redefining the "hopless" student in question to the point that he's practically running around the kwoon naked, tripping over his own feet, while wearing a helmet, shrieking "I'm a rooster! I'm a rooster!" and clubbing his fellow students with a morning star, we can eventually come up with a scenario in which it would not be appropriate to let him train with others.

In the context of the original post, I don't believe it is appropriate to simply "give up" on a student who is trying and who earnestly wants to train but who isn't as mentally or physically gifted as the instructor would like (or compared to the instructor's other students). An instructor who would screen his students thusly is an elitist and, while he is free to be an elitist and the average ability of the students he produces will obviously be higher, he is not someone with whom I would choose to train because of his attitude. I believe everyone's life has value and that everyone has the right to self-defense. Accordingly, I would not wish to train with an instructor who would turn away an earnest student as "unworthy."

kakuma
1st June 2005, 21:55
In the context of the original post, I don't believe it is appropriate to simply "give up" on a student who is trying and who earnestly wants to train but who isn't as mentally or physically gifted as the instructor would like (or compared to the instructor's other students). An instructor who would screen his students thusly is an elitist and, while he is free to be an elitist and the average ability of the students he produces will obviously be higher, he is not someone with whom I would choose to train because of his attitude. I believe everyone's life has value and that everyone has the right to self-defense. Accordingly, I would not wish to train with an instructor who would turn away an earnest student as "unworthy."

Agreed! I believe this has been the point from the beginning. Somewhere along the line the original post has been ignored.

Smart Alex
1st June 2005, 22:30
[QUOTE=kakuma]
Once again according to the original post this is not the case. If ethics were involved or were an issue, then I could understand. But, this seems to be an issue where intructor/instructors feel they are not learning fast enough or in a manner that pleases them and discarding them based on that.
QUOTE]

Actually sir, the case is tht the student are Not dedicated, do not practice, and bring nothing to the table. Our school is not there to make money. In fact we do not charge dues or fees of any kind. We are there only to train serious, dedicated students. As was mentioned in a prior post, Martail arts is not for everyone. Like it or not, there are people out there who are not suited for martial arts.

Sharp Phil
1st June 2005, 23:07
I believe I posted early on that a teacher who shows an unmotivated student the door is doing them both a favor. I'd want nothing to do with a teacher who did the same to an earnest student. The rest is simply rationalizing choices made for own convenience.

kakuma
1st June 2005, 23:58
Mr. Shore thank you for the added information. In conjunction with your initial post, because he does not pay a fee this does not change my feeling on discarding the student. The student may find value that you may not be aware of. Now is the time to have a sit down and define said students intentions

I believe also that the time you place on his training would have to change. Depending on how long he has been training your time should be focused to those that are dedicated and wanting to learn. Usually they eventually disappear if after the talk things do not change.

Be well.

Smart Alex
2nd June 2005, 00:58
Unfortunately the conversation has been had with that student several times and things have not changed. for the record we always assume the problem is with us first, before we talk to the student. therefore everything and anything we could think of to do to get this particular student motivated has already been done. the problem is, that whether or not he is finding some value, he is detrimental to the rest of the class and their progress. I agree with you that " your time should be focused to those that are dedicated and wanting to learn" that is why we have had to consider dropping this student, So that our time can be given to those who, most importantly, have earned it and therefore deserve it.

stay healthy.

kakuma
2nd June 2005, 07:46
Well, in the grand scheme of things. No matter what anyone feelings are concerning this issue (especially my own) you have to make that decision. It seems that by your last post you already have. Good Luck.

Gambatte Kudasai.

dakotajudo
3rd June 2005, 00:29
How is a teacher who refuses to "give up" on a less talented student providing "lesser training" to his other students?
A teacher whose attention is diverted to a single student, for whatever reason, gives less attention to the others. How much of an impact this has depends on the kind of arts you practice. What I do, it can be a major factor.

I'm reminded of that every time I get a new student.


I am not concerned with the aggregate skill level of the technicians produced by a school; I am concerned only with my own training.

That's too bad. I assume you train mostly solo kata?



The original post in this thread said nothing about a student who was mentally handicapped, suffering severe physical infirmity, or causing problems or danger to his fellow students, unless I misinterpreted its meaning.

Again, depends on the art. Based on your statements, I doubt you've had much experience with the kind of training I have in mind. (As an aside - I''ve taught tai chi, none of my comments come from that experience. Any clod can practice tai chi; all I did was lead the choreography. Not really training, just instruction).

Simply put, the most important piece of training equipment, in the arts I've practiced, is other students. Almost everything is done with a partner. A good partner raises the level of training; a poor partner brings it down. And since, in the clubs I've trained in, everybody rolls with everone else, poor students impact the aggregate.

But that's not the criteria I use as to whether a student can train with us (not me, us). Bottom line is, don't break the training equipment - and I'm usually the piece that breaks first, since I roll with the newbies first. I've had a shoulder dislocated (OK, not first time) by a student who forced an armbar over my objections; I couldn't breathe properly for a couple weeks 'cause a student ineptly attempted a sacrifice throw, I landed chest into knee.

The things we practice can hurt people and we constantly train with other people. We risk injury nearly every practice - and one of the factors that affects that risk is the competence of our training partners. Spazzes are no fun to be stuck with.


If we're going to keep redefining the "hopless" student in question to the point that he's practically running around the kwoon naked, tripping over his own feet, while wearing a helmet, shrieking "I'm a rooster! I'm a rooster!" and clubbing his fellow students with a morning star, we can eventually come up with a scenario in which it would not be appropriate to let him train with others.

Yeah, then we would be using different definitions of "train with others". The training I'm talking about doesn't involve a group of people mimicing the same motion in the same room at the same time; training with means I give you my body; put myself in a vulnerable position so that you can practice your technique, trusting that you'll stop when I say it hurts. Definitely not a position to be in if your partner goes rooster-!!!!.

But in the context of my tai chi class? If no one complains about rooster boy, why should I care?


In the context of the original post, I don't believe it is appropriate to simply "give up" on a student who is trying and who earnestly wants to train but who isn't as mentally or physically gifted as the instructor would like (or compared to the instructor's other students).

I don't know how much you're reading into the original post. From my experience, I don't agree with the "you can't train that individual" of the O.P., but, at least w.r.t the arts I train, "Martial Arts isn't for everyone" is true.


An instructor who would screen his students thusly is an elitist and, while he is free to be an elitist and the average ability of the students he produces will obviously be higher, he is not someone with whom I would choose to train because of his attitude.

Not necessarily elitist, more likely pragmatic. Run your own program, you may find you can't afford to be idealistic.


I believe everyone's life has value and that everyone has the right to self-defense.

I didn't realize you had such liberal tendencies. True, everybody has a right to defend themselves, but no one has a right to learn a formal system of self defense.

Certainly no one has a right to come into my club, take advantage of, first, the results of my own training (which I don't take for granted or assume was my right), and, second, my work to train other students to where they are good training partners.

My students are a valuable training resource, for myself, themselves, and new students coming in. I'll protect that. I don't want students who are only concerned with their own training and won't add to the group.


Accordingly, I would not wish to train with an instructor who would turn away an earnest student as "unworthy."

Define "unworthy"; that's an awfully vague word - you might be setting up a strawman. Earnest and incompetent is a bad combination; you should be so lucky if your instructor protects you from that.

dakotajudo
3rd June 2005, 00:38
the problem is, that whether or not he is finding some value, he is detrimental to the rest of the class and their progress.

That, to me, is the bottom line.

FWIW, I trained in an aikido dojo for a couples, some town, doesn't matter where, but ...

After a couple years, several of us traveled to a seminar. There, I met a person who did live in that particular town, and had trained with that particular dojo, but, for reasons I'm not really sure about, was no longer allowed to train in that dojo - instead, he was affiliated with a dojo in a town about three hours away.

I got partnered with that person during the course of the seminar; I think my aikido sensei made the right decision.



I agree with you that " your time should be focused to those that are dedicated and wanting to learn" that is why we have had to consider dropping this student,

Can you divide your students into beginner and advanced groups; and provide well-defined physical skills for being allowed into the advanced group. This may minimize the impact of poor students, now and in the future.

On the down side, mixing levels, I find, usually benefits the beginners, and kinda hurts the club.

Have you also considered talking to a few other, maybe senior, students? Might give you a different perspective; maybe this person is such a problem, seen through the eyes of his peers.

Smart Alex
3rd June 2005, 01:31
Actually the classes are divided three days a week and mixed two days a week.

As far sa the decision went it was made by the head instructor at the school (not me), the assistant instructors (me), and the senior students.

We all came to the decision, as a group. We weren't happy that it had to be done, but....well, like i said, it had to be done.

Smart Alex
3rd June 2005, 01:36
Also, it appears that the decision, though not known to the general student population, was a popular one. We have heard several other students express relief among themselves that that particular student isn't there.