"You completely failed to deal with my reasoning."

You have no reasoning. You1ve presented nothing but unfounded assumption - assumption that says a lot more about the limitations of your own knowledge and experience than it does about me.

Since this is the only on-topic comment you1ve made lately, I1ll address it uniquely.

"Inexperienced dancers lack the conceptual framework on which to base an evaluation of an instructor1s students. Other than working with that teacher themselves, they should watch him or her actually teaching another couple as Terence suggested."

On the contrary, ANYONE, DANCER OR NOT, has the basis on which to base an evaluation of a teacher1s students.

The procedure is simple: take a huge step backwards away from the floor, open your eyes, and look. Are they dancing practically, or are all their attempts at movement basically physical battles between two bodies that do not know how to cooperate? Obviously, the more couples you can compare them to and the longer you watch, the more accurate the judgment.

If all of a teacher1s student1s fail this average Joe inspection, then one may have a lot of concern about that teacher1s actual ability.

Each of the other two options presented has a serious flaw.

Watching the teacher teach only shows their ability to present material in an organized way and interact positively with their students. Unless you are an expert yourself, you cannot actually judge if what the teacher is presenting is useful or correct - you can only see that they appear to be organized and their students like them. Often that1s a good sign - but my commentary was about the teachers who look like they are teaching well, but turn out to be teaching impractical things. Because the non-expert cannot judge the accuracy of the message, he or she can only look at the outcome that results: how the students dance.

The other proposal, to work with the teacher yourself has the added disadvantage of needing a long period of time to discover the outcome. In the case of the organized and friendly but impractical teachers I was describing, you might well turn out to be one of the couples I watch tragically waste their lives seeking guidance from those who cannot help.

So, according to The Lead Who Can't Lead, due to some innate human capacity to perceive even the slightest awkwardness, an inexperienced couple will get a better idea of a teacher's quality by watching the students of that teacher perform moves with which they are unfamiliar than by actually working with that teacher personally.

Oh. . . of course. How could anything be more obvious?

Yes, maintaining a complete lack of logic is certainly a unique way of addressing a subject.

Any awkwardness observed could be due to several factors unrelated to a teacher's quality of instruction and, correspondingly, an inexperienced amateur would not have the judgment to discern a lack of proper instruction from an absence of natural physical skill.

The reason that you're so sensitive to this idea of fluid motion is your inability to control that motion. This weakness stems from allowing yourself to be back-led all of the time.

My offer to help you learn to lead properly still stands.



jj

"an inexperienced couple will get a better idea of a teacher1s quality by watching the students of that teacher perform moves with which they are unfamiliar than by actually working with that teacher personally."

Yes, they will - because by watching that teacher1s long term students, they get to see the outcome of a long period of work with that teacher, without having to wait out that period themselves. If all of the good, determined students who have been working with a teacher for years still have a tragically forced character to their failing attempts, this does not recommend the teacher.

And by watching others, the person wondering gets to see the effect of the teacher, without being distracted by the feeling that they are being helped. The reason teachers like this can stay in business is that their students feel like they are getting a lot of help. But in fact the teacher is not giving them solutions to their problems.

"Any awkwardness observed could be due to several factors unrelated to a teacher1s quality of instruction"

You1ve already admitted that i acknowledged this. What you1ve failed to admit is that my entire line of argument has been about the specific category of situations where the fault is with the teacher, not the student.

"an inexperienced amateur would not have the judgment to discern a lack of proper instruction from an absence of natural physical skill."

The purpose of dance teachers is to build these "physical skills" in those who have not yet learned them. A teacher who cannot teach this is not a dance teacher - they may be someone who can coach performance out of an already good dancer, but they are not a dance TEACHER. A dance teacher is someone who can break down these skills and present them in a way that they are learned.

As I've pointed out previously, you really haven't dealt with any specifics at all.


What you say may be true but it does not relate to my argument that inexperienced dancers who have not yet learned those skills cannot discern them in others through observation.




jj

"As I1ve pointed out previously, you really haven1t dealt with any specifics at all."

All of my posts in this line of argument have been about the specific class of situation where the instructor appears to be teaching well, but what they are teaching does not include the information that would enable the student to practically dance.

That1s very distinct from the situation where the teacher is presenting the needed information but the student is not learning, and also from the situation where the teacher lacks any ability to present information in an organized manner.

Without teacher-level in-depth expertise yourself, the primary means of telling the difference between a great presentation that doesn1t include the needed information and students getting the right information but failing to learn is to look at the teacher1s students collectively. If all of the teacher's couples are failing to develop practical dance abilities, including those who are comparable in habits and physical and personal characteristics to those succeeding with other teachers, then this suggests that the teacher himself or herself may be a major part of the problem. On the other hand, if some are dancing practically and others failing, that points the finger either at a learning style mismatch between the teacher and students, or quite likely at the students themselves.

"What you say may be true but it does not relate to my argument that inexperienced dancers who have not yet learned those skills cannot discern them in others through observation."

The ability to dance practically is something that can be discerned by non-dancers as well as dancers. The non-dancers probably can't explain what specific building-block skills are missing in any useful way, but they can sure spot that something is wrong, and pick a teacher whose students aren't all exhibiting such difficulty.

In fact, the impracticality of the attempts by the subcategory of intermediates who are not getting or listening to effective training but are instead obsessing with miss-application of relatively unimportant details is something that often generates a lot of negative comment from non-dancers.

fundamentals of dance are fairly stable with only the nouances changing through the years.


I don't think that you or anyone else can clearly demarcate what you describe as a class of any specifity at all.

If I've learned anything in working my way through the greater part of dance education opportunities in Atlanta, it's that good instructors find a way to bring something new to your plate.

But even good instructors have their weaknesses and blind spots as well as their strengths. It's up to the student to be clever enough to mine that instructor's expertise for what works and recognize what doesn't.

However, almost any instructor can get an inexperienced student started with the basics of movement. The worst teacher that I've ever had at least knew her fundamentals.

After attending some weeks of classes and deciding to 'get serious,' the inexperienced folks need to get on the floor with someone in order to develop their basic repertoire. After several months, the next thing that they should do (if they can afford to do so) is to add classes and lessons from other teachers to gain the advantage of multiple perspectives and thus strengthen their fundamentals.

It appears that Doll and Scottyboy are following just that strategy. They're going to be fine.



jj

"I don1t think that you or anyone else can clearly demarcate what you describe as a class of any specifity at all."

Actually, I can. All of my posts in this line of argument have been about the specific class of situation where the instructor appears to be teaching well, but what they are teaching does not include the information that would enable the student to practically dance.

"The worst teacher that I1ve ever had at least knew her fundamentals."

What I1ve discovered is that some relatively respected teachers turn out actually not to. That1s the problem that I am addressing here - teachers who give the impression of expertise, but turn out to not actually know their subject. You would not think that they could survive, but with the right mix of other skills, roles and connections, they do.

And my point is that they way you can avoid these fakes is to look at a potential teacher1s students collectively - if they are ALL struggling to dance, it does not suggest good things about that teacher.

I guess i have the best perspective having been trained in the UK and worked for both chains in all capacities .

The prestige of the English soc. has always carried more " weight " .
Having been an Examiner in the States for many yrs, its fair to say , that in many cases, teachers were well schooled, but, not all.

larger metro areas have had access to better training in many cases . The problem lies more in the " life "span of the staff, of which many are not around long enough to develop their talents.
As to DVIDA, am not familiar with their syllabus, but have been told its comparable to most others .

They took the conventional syllabi and made a few changes to justify the purchase of their videos.

I have nothing against Dance Vision (even though they messed up most of the orders that I gave them). DV is a good source for many dance-related materials and I have purchased several videos and CDs from them.

For an authority on ballroom, however, I'll stick with USISTD and IDTA.



jj