15 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tau
Tau's picture
Qualifications in the Martial Arts (NVQs, BTECs and so on)

As a twitter follower of Steve Rowe, I see him advertising MASA. To get the MASA approval you need, among other things, an NVQ or equivalent. Jamie Clubb has talked about the BTEC qualification. I would add that I've never actually met Steve Rowe but have attended a lecture by one of his senior members. I've had the pleasure of learning from Jamie twice recently.

Are these qualifications necessary? What do they actually give the Martial Arts instructor? The Coaching courses that the organisation that I teach for have been Sport England ratified but are single-day courses resulting in an organisation-specific diploma. I don't dispute the validity or quality of these diplomas but I know that they carry almost no weight outside of the organisation. 

Should all Martial Arts instructors pursue NVQs, BTECs and so on? Will they eventually be mandatory? Given that I satisfy all aspects of MASA except for the NVQ (and actively advertise that my club and organistion have these aspects in place) is obtaining MASA approval of any benefit?

I hasten to add that this thread isn't a criticism but a genuine question. I don't know if Steve Rowe or any of his people post on here. I could e-mail him directly but this way I get a more broad answer.

Gavin Mulholland
Gavin Mulholland's picture

Personally, I have fought this publicly every time it rears its ugly head.

While I do know Steve Rowe and know that his intentions are good, I wholly reject anyone’s attempts to regulate other people or what they do.

Karate is not an homogenous art – what one person does in the dojo may have different aims, practices, goals, tactics, strategies etc, from what someone else does. Karate is an umbrella term and does not cover a defined set of practices – so who has the right to tell others what they should be doing?

I am deeply suspicious of anyone who puts themselves forward as the ‘regulator’ – somehow implying that they have it right and that everyone else has it wrong and needs to fit in with what they are doing. And of course, there will be money changing hands in the process.

I was recently asked to fill in a class agenda saying what my coming class would cover. The idiot requesting it was completely non-plussed by my explanation that I had no idea what I would be teaching until I saw who was in the group to be taught. For me, it is the expression of over 40 years training and my skills in being able to look at a group and immediately tailor what I am going to do based on the skill set and needs of those participating. To him, this was a terrible piece of non-compliance which left his checklist unticked. To wit – we are not speaking the same language.

Regulation is all about conformation and conformation is a hidden word for mediocrity.

These people do not speak for me, nor do they represent me or what I do and I want them to back off and leave everyone alone to do their own thing.  As they have for hundreds – maybe thousands – of years, the market will take care of things and good clubs will prosper while bad ones go to the wall.

Regulation is yet another example of interfering political nonsense and the sooner it gets buried, the better off we all shall be. 

Black Tiger
Black Tiger's picture
Questionn how can a traditional Karate trained "NVQ assessor" know about Modern Ashihara or Enshin Karate. How can some one who only knows EKF kumite assess full contact knock down Karate Kumite and vice versa. As stated before you can not write a lesson plan because all experienced Instructors will tell you, you decide what you're doing whilst you're lining th class up etc. My Bassai is not the same as other Ryu as its a Tang Soo Do version which has Ashihara style influxes to it etc. I don't teach stances, I don't have written tests and I am sure there are other schools styles etc which are about the same. Regulation is ok to a point, but like Philosophy there is no incorrect answer as longer as you can qualify it
Gary Chamberlain
Gary Chamberlain's picture

If that sort of thing becomes a requirement to run a club, I'll happily stand down.  The only coaching qualification I've ever sought or valued is results.  I travelled hundreds and even thousands of miles to train with the best instructors I'd heard of.  I never once thought to ask if they had an NVQ.

Gary

Black Tiger
Black Tiger's picture

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

If that sort of thing becomes a requirement to run a club, I'll happily stand down.  The only coaching qualification I've ever sought or valued is results.  I travelled hundreds and even thousands of miles to train with the best instructors I'd heard of.  I never once thought to ask if they had an NVQ.

Gary

I agree with Gary,

I would gladly attend ANY seminars that Gary put on and know that everything that was worked on throughout the seminar would have be fully "validated" prior to passing on the techical knowledge.

OSU!!

wayne williams
wayne williams's picture

A coaching qualification cant be a bad thing surely. It does not follow that having an NVQ in coaching dictates what you teach, to me it denotes how you teach. It can be applied to Martial Arts, Tennis, Golf. In fact any sport that you care to name. Many associations allow dan grades to establish their own classes without any formal assesment of their ability to instruct, im not sure how adequate that is either. Of course many of the present day Masters have no formal coaching qualification, that does not mean that having an NVQ will replace 40yrs of experiance what it does mean is that as a "new" coach your abilities to coach have been assessed and deemed good enough to teach others. Not sure thats such a bad thing myself.

Wayne 

Christopher Cri...
Christopher Crittenden's picture

I have no knowledge of these types of qualifications.  I assume they are "generic coaching knowledge" qualifications?  By which I mean, they are courses that are supposed to theoretically apply to any "sporting or physical activity or taught skill set"?  If this is the case, then one problem I see with instructors getting some official coaching qualification is that coaches in other sports are individuals, but their sports are not.  Their sport operates with the same rules or near the same rules across the board, but they are just games.  That game, and its attendant rules, strategies and skills, can be taught "properly" regardless of the personality of the coach.  Many of us have had coaches in sports or gym class that we can look back on and say "yeah, they were cool!" and others who we'd rather forget lest we have a fear-induced flashback, yet both types "knew the game".  Coaches can be mentors, or they can just be drill sergeants, yet they can teach the game properly regardless.  

Martial arts, I think we can agree, are much more than some game, and they entail much more than teaching mere rules, teamwork and ball passing.  Coaches in other sports, IMO, have no idea what martial arts instruction truly entails, unless they are also involved in martial arts, so how can some generic "coaching course" adequately reflect those (in my opinion) vast differences?  How much of what a competent martial arts instructor needs to know is adequately covered by such a course?  How many coaches ever have to say "Remember, team, these are dangerous skills.  You should only ever make a goal in self-defense"?

Another problem I see with this is that the public as a whole *always* takes a certification, any certification, as "proof" that said instructors are the "best".  That means that instructors who choose not to get the qual are also choosing to limit severely their potential to attract new students.  Before long, more instructors get the qual than don't, then money changes hands somewhere and a new governmental "regulation" is created requiring all instructors to be certified, and what a coincidence that there is only one martial arts coaching organization recognized by the government licensing office.  Soon, politics and ego get even more involved and personality clashes make getting the qual impossible for some, and their vision of their art dies quietly in a backyard somewhere...

Daniel: "Will you train me, Mr. Miyagi?"

Miyagi: "Sorry Daniel-san.  Miyagi no have NVQ.  Sato father president of licensing board."

I'm sure we could come up with other potential problems, and if we could bet that they'd actually happen, it'd probably be a safe bet, given human history :) For example, a licensed karate instructor getting sued for damage caused by his or her student?  They were "certified", right?  Shouldn't they have taught their student not to do such things?  Plaintiff wins...

In my opinion, NOT getting some general, all-purpose coaching certification is the best way for all of us to be united in order to ensure that all of us get to pass on our arts, each one as unique as each of us, because no one else has your experiences but you and, if its possible at all, only you can impart your experience to another.

Regards,

Christopher Crittenden

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

I have mixed feeling on this one. I totally agree that there is the danger of enforced mediocrity if a “governing body” mandates what should be taught and how it should be taught. We also have the situation in parts of the world where the “official governing body” is recognised by the government as the only legitimate body and hence they will only let members who have qualifications with that body use their sports centres, halls, etc to teach. This is effectively blackmailing all instructors into joining the body in question and that strikes me as unfair and unethical.

However, there are some things that I’m sure we all agree all good instructors should have in place i.e. first aid qualifications, a child protection policy (if they teach children), CRB checks (not infallible but worth doing in my view), insurance for both instructors and members, and so on. There are also the can’t get away from legal requirements such as risk assessments etc. Most insurance companies, quite rightly, demand this stuff nowadays anyway before they will insure an instructor or group. If the qualification was to ensure that all these things are in place, and it was open to all regardless of their affiliation, then I would think it would be a positive thing over all.

It’s things that are mandatory (or aspire to be mandatory) and seek to control that concern me. I’m totally OK with optional “kite marks” that state the fundamentals are in place though. All good instructors will have them anyway and hence a badge to say that’s the case is fair enough in my view; just so long as it is not dictatorial in way it is implemented

All the best,

Iain

wayne williams
wayne williams's picture
I know that the coaching qualification that my association offers does not just teach us some generic method of imparting information about a game and it's rules. As much as anything else it gives skills in the actual running of a club or association, for example handling sentive information or issues, good administration skills are crucial for confidence in the club and instructor. ( knowing the Sensei isn't going to run off with the insurance money, heard of that one) Communication skills, cultural awareness issues, child protection, codes of ethics. The list goes on. Getting a dan grade does not make a coach IMO. Plenty of areas of our society are plagued by poor practices and I think it's our duty as coaches be ahead of the curve not just keep up with it.
gazrichards
gazrichards's picture

Sorry to reserect an old thread but I feel my input may be useful here.

I am a full-time proffesional karate instructor. my background is in traditional shotokan.

I am currently going through the process to qualify as an NVQ assesor with the purpose being to qualify people as coaches.

It is important to mention that there is no NVQ qualification called "martial arts instruction" or its possible variants. the nearest qualification is "principles of coaching sport" and is qeneric towards sports such as trampolining, karate, hockey etc etc.

Now anyone can take the course and qulify - not as a karate instructor -  but as a sports coach. it just means that you have the tools to lead a group through a sports activity and delivery a coaching programme. Whilst in theory it does mean that potentially a brown belt with the NVQ is qualified to a higher level to coach than a 6th Dan it really doesnt as an NVQ is a vocational qualification based on the qualification holders knowledge in the particualr field.

If a governing body was to bring in such legislation then it still could not change what you teach or even the way you teach it (unless you are doing some incredibly irresponsible things in your classes).

I am hoping that in the future I will be able to write a course that becomes a specific "martial arts instructors qualification) but having looked at the sports coach I cant see that it would be much different so I doubt the NVQ body will go with it.

My reasonings for going through this process is simply because I want to be the best karate instructor I can be. I made the decision about 10 years ago that I wanted to make karate my carear and to me that means training regularly so that I have more knowledge to impart on my classes, acting in a proffesional manner at my classes, using the best facilities and equipment available, having the best insurance policy in place for me and my students, being first aid trained and having some sort of recognised qualification to back up my abilities as a martial arts coach.

This was really all my own choice and came about after being involved with an instructor that cut corners on all of the above (he even did his own qualifaction scheme which invloved getting people to teach his classes for no payment whilst thinking they were earning a recognised qualification).

The NVQ is not to asses your ability to do karate - hopefully your Dan grade does that - it simpy validates what your are doing in your classes and puts it under a recognised umbrella.

shoshinkanuk
shoshinkanuk's picture

I think the big difference in attitude will be between proffesional and non-proffesional Sensei on this subject.

I don't view karate as or teach it as a sport so its all irrelevant to me.............................ha coaches is for tennis! LOL

Black Tiger
Black Tiger's picture

I Love seeing "Grand Master  - Professor X of Y Martial Arts" in some of the Schools around the world and they've never been to Uni etc to get a PHD in "martial arts"

Tau
Tau's picture

Black Tiger wrote:
I Love seeing "Grand Master  - Professor X of Y Martial Arts" in some of the Schools around the world and they've never been to Uni etc to get a PHD in "martial arts"

I'm not defending the over-use of titles in Martial Arts or indeed ego-stoking but are these not just Angicisations (sp?) of Japanese titles? e.g. "Master" ~= Renshi, "Professor" ~= Kyoshi, "Grand Master" ~= Hanshi.

Black Tiger
Black Tiger's picture

Understood Tau, but as far as I am aware, any school "claiming" lineage to Japan, these 'titles' can only be awarded by the Budokan panel (not too sure of the correct name of the Organisation board) Not self awarded because they want it

Tau
Tau's picture

Black Tiger wrote:
Understood Tau, but as far as I am aware, any school "claiming" lineage to Japan, these 'titles' can only be awarded by the Budokan panel (not too sure of the correct name of the Organisation board) Not self awarded because they want it

Which is why they use the (approximately translated) title in English.