I've written quite a bit about McDojo recently, so now I'm turning my pen towards the the traditional school. But what defines a traditional school? A recent discussion chanced upon just that question: what defines a traditional school? One of the participants answered that a traditional school is one that "knows the art".
A simple, true, but incomplete answer.
I believe that there is much more to being traditional than simply
knowing the art. In addition to knowing what the art
is, what makes a school traditional or not lies in the schools primary reason for existence; a traditional school's primary reason for their existence is to
teach and promote that art, with any income drawn from teaching and promotion going to meeting the school's expenses and reasonable compensation of the staff.
A traditional school is one that is run by a lady or gent who teaches because they have a passion for the art. The fact that they can make enough to live while doing so is an added bonus, but not the primary motivation.
A traditional school will only pass those students who know the material for their rank; a student who cannot demonstrate the knowledge and technique for seventh geup doesn't get passed to sixth until he or she can.
A traditional school teaches the art in the way that it was originally conceived. I don't mean rigid adherence to each and every thing that the art's founder laid down; arts do evolve and grow, but rather teaching in the spirit in which the art was intended. In the case of TKD, teaching it as a
martial art and as a fighting style.
There are those who feel that being 'traditional' means rigid discipline and strong disciplinary measures from the instructor. Methods of discipline, such as pushups or laps around the dojang, or whatever else are a function of the teacher's style, rather than marking the school traditional or nontraditional. I've seen little league coaches who are rougher on their team of twelve year olds than my instructor in the late eighties was with his adult class, and he was pretty hard core. Being rough on the students or being hard core doesn't in and of itself make a school traditional. I think that it is important to differentiate teaching style from tradition.
I understand that there are tournament competition only schools out there. These are
not traditional schools. That isn't a dig at them; just stating the fact. That doesn't make them bad; if they instil good technique and athleticism in their students and don't pass people who can't demonstrate proper technique, then fine. Such schools focus on legitamate part of taekwondo. But that isn't
traditional.
Lastly, a traditional school separates daycare and afterschool programs from the martial arts lessons and will generally not offer such services; kids who need child care should be getting childcare and not get enrolled in a martial arts class simply to enable mommy and daddy to cheap out on daycare.
Personally, I don't believe that martial arts schools should even offer daycare. I often question whether or not most of the ones who do are even properly licensed to do so. Daycare, which is what 'karate camp' and after school programs amount to, is usually a stand alone business with its own set of headaches and issues. A quality daycare center exists to provide quality daycare. Large companies that offer daycare have a dedicated facility and
licensed staff for just that. It isn't mixed with their regular business.
Can a traditional martial arts school offer karate camp and afterschool services and still be traditional? I answer with a qualified yes. Here's the qualification: licensed staff and don't mix camp/afterschool programs with martial arts instruction. If mommy and daddy wish to enroll their child in taekwondo, or whatever martial art the school teaches, then they should do so as a separate transaction. Personally, I'm not in favor of it, but if done correctly it can help to keep the traditional school's doors open and provides the traditional school with a base of potential future students.
You may notice that my definition of traditional doesn't address leadership or blackbelt clubs or similar programs. The existence of such programs at a school, again, do not make it traditional or not. It is the execution and purpose of such programs that count. If the programs are in place to build better students, then they have a place in a traditional school. Nor does my definition address whether or not the school is tied to a large organization. Many have a mentality that schools tied to a big organization, such as ATA, ITF or Kukkiwon are somehow not the genuine article, but I disagree; there are both genuine, traditional schools and frauds in all of the big organizations.
Ultimately, the question shouldn't even
be traditional or nontraditional. It should be genuine or fradulent. Consider that programs and teaching methods can often mask whether or not a school is genuine or not. A school can offer all of the programs typically associated with a McDojo and still be genuine while a self appointed 'master' can set up a school with all of the trappings of a traditional school and still be a fraud.
Daniel
Tags: Traditional Dojo Dojang School
