As has been said before ... a qualification does not mean you CAN teach, it means at least you have been trained to teach. Being trained to teach gives the average Joe a HUGE advantage over the dancer who just decides to teach. Are their qualified teachers who lose the way .. of course ... ego is a key factor.
Another factor is, and answer honestly, how many teachers try to keep up to date and keep training themselves? In the work environment, professional personal development is either encourages or, as an accounting professional, compulsory. Shouldn't it be similar for teachers?
I’m going to Southport this weekend. There is dancing if I want it, good tunes to listen to and some serious socialising to be done. However, the main reason for me is to watch and learn from the teachers there. Having been out of the teaching game for a while I'm painfully aware of how much work I need to put in to get back up to scratch.
By watching the Southport teachers I'll be looking at: what teaching models are being used; what types of moves are being developed; how to market new workshops; what NOT to do ..... do you not think that ALL teachers owe it to their paying customers to try to stay up to date?
If you have attended a training course it means you have received training. I does not mean that anybody thinks you can acutally teach. If you have passed a teaching exam it means the examiners opinion is that you can teach to the level required by the examiners - in their opinion. It might be that Gus thinks the examiners are wrong, but that is simply another opinion.
As I said; the alternative SJA (smooth jive ass.) exists fully formed in one or more peoples heads and on some papers somewhere. As does the original SJA (smurf jive ass.). I'd like to point out that our multiple-choice teacher accreditation process is near perfect and above reproach and I resent Andy's continuing implication that everything is not above board, hunky-dorey and the bestest system ever invented.
Bloody McGregor, always sticking his oar in.
I'd Sue him, but he already has one.
I don't necessarily agree with this.
Firstly, this assumes that skill levels and abilities are equal at the start. Which is not necessarily true. The 'untrained' teacher might be a lot more able in the field of teaching, or have experience from other sorts of teaching that they can bring into the teaching dance field. Of course, it's also true that they may not
Secondly, while the teaching courses are I'm sure very worthwhile, and, from what I've heard, very intensive, they are only a week long (I know that there's additional work done usually with another teacher, or a franchisee as well, but who's to say that other people starting to teach don't do the same sort of work themselves - I'd certainly hope that they would!). There is only a limited amount of information you can pick up, and put into practice in a week. I've not done the teacher training course, but I've done week long courses in other areas (project management, team building, and (dare I say it), training). And, after a week, you have an idea or two (maybe even three!), and some things to try out, but really, that's where the learning actually starts. From my experiences, I'd say that a weeks training would give you a head-start over someone who doesn't have it (again, assuming you start at the same level, with the same abilities), but a HUGE advantage, I'm not sure that I agree with this.
Its always good to have an alternative view
Not denying that. I should have prefaced it with the "all thnigs being equal". Having said that, in practice, prospective teachers are picked from the better (best) dancers and are auditions to weed out the weak
The old CTA was 1 week for the beginners then two 3-day session for Int 1 and 2 ... then 3 weekenders for the advanced stuff ... then more training if you were running workshops ...
I can see your point .. lets agree on a SIGNIFICANT advantage. My experiences from my own area is that the properly trained instructors are mostly reasonable (despite a few egos getting in the way) and are head and shoulders above the untrained teachers ... who mostly suck (How's that for sitting on the fence )
In the health and fitness arena, we have to undertake CPD (Continual Professioanl Development). This basically allows us to build up points which when accumulated ensure your placing on a national register of exercise professionals. This is a great idea...not only does it mean we keep up to date with the latest innovations, buzz words and methods within the fitness world but it also keeps our own personal motivation at a high standard.
When I went through CTA (.....a long time ago), I was lucky enough at the time to benefit from good instruction from Mr Pauly. Without that, I'd have been a bit scuppered. As for 'boot-camp' week in sunny London, sorry Tramp, I disagree. It was at this time you really learned your stuff. The amount of prior prep' you needed to do was huge. Learning moves word for word...to the letter. I agree it doesn't mean you can teach them, but it does mean you don't have to practise talking the move before teaching the move, allowing far more time to concentrate on the movement itself.
Hence the reason why I used to not like people who branded themselves a 'teacher'. That term to me means qualified. I was always very aware that if i went to another venue i wanted to be taught by a qualified teacher...not an affiliate with a lot of experience, not someone in training...but a fully qualified bona-fide teacher.
It's just the way I am.....sorry.
Downside to the CTA...it's not recognised, or at least it wasn't before...not sure anymore. SO yeah, you might be qualified, but only because the boot-camp facists said you were. They didn't get it wrong that often mind you!
J
I am sooooo bad with my typing and spelling, I am just happy this is the first time someone has picked this up!
Yeah, I ment, looked to attend thier classes.
Back on topic...
It don't take long to see who is a good teacher and who is not, training can take many ways, and qualificatins does not make a good teacher - it simply makes a qualified (in some persons world) one.
Thanks for that Onkar... It's nice to know that I've made a small impression
I've said it before and I'll say it again (just for you Andy) Andy McGregor opened my eyes to the 'bleedin' obvious' and started me on my 'UK Smoooth' journey. However, I'm also grateful to Paul Warden, a man whom I have the utmost respect for - never before have I come across an instructor with such passion for his dance.
'Fraid not... the frustrating thing about independent dance organisations is that we like to be just that.... independent!
We all have our own different takes on what 'smooth' means - we've all had different influences in the past which get us to where we are today, and introducing 'smooth' dancing into a conventional MJ club also has financial implications, as you can lose your established customer base... and what's a dance club with no dancers!!!
It's been four years since Mr McGregor very kindly took my dancing apart and in truth, I'd probably be a richer man if I hadn't listened to him and carried on in the mainstream, because the truth is, people don't like change and managing change has been hard, in truth I've made more mistakes than correct decisions when introducing the new techniques! But Mr McG did open my eyes and once they were opened I haven't been able to go back! With what I learnt from Paul Warden and the bit of tango and lindy hop training I'd received, I looked at Modern Jive through new eyes. But it's a pandora's box and it's open!!! The journey has been amazing... questioning everything, taking good ideas from other dance styles, having a few good ideas myself and finally bringing it altogether and naming it - UK Smoooth (This was the hardest bit!) A truly social partner dance with just enough technique... teaching technique is the hardest bit and probably the reason many clubs don't do it! People can learn it easily, but it's hard to put it across at the same time as entertaining an audience!
Now if a 'Smooth Jive Association' told me that I'd have to compromise on my style of dance to keep it more in line with conventional MJ for example, I'd tell them where to get off, but that doesn't make me right in doing so - I believe other more financially enlightened dance organisers are using the word 'smooth' to describe something far more in keeping with conventional MJ. Fair play to them, but that's not my direction!
Vive la difference!
Finally, on the subject of qualifications.... this is a sticky subject. I have no qualifications to teach dance, but apparently I do it quite well.
I guess that without some form of legislation (and we've quite enough of that already) there will always be 'joe public' going along to dance classes and being poorly served by bad teachers. It's a form of lottery I guess! But if a teacher claims to be qualified he/she should have a copy of that qualification with them and available for inspection on the front desk, along with the club's insurance, PPL etc...
Finally...
As teachers we offer our product to the marketplace... if the market place wants it, it will support it, if it doesn't we will fail. As the economy makes us all tighten our belts I would say to all dancers, support your favourite dance venues and keep giving feedback to the club organisers... if they get a demand for more smooth workshops, they may give me a call!!!
So, and I'm guessing here, you're saying that you have never heard of a smooth jive association and wouldn't join one if it existed.
I don't believe there is an organisation of smooth jivers which accredits teachers.
And I believe in most things, including fairies*
*We MUST keep Tinkerbell alive
I thought you WERE Tinkerbell ?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks