If I owned a studio I would have printed and framed and hung on the wall instructions on the difference between the rise and fall in the Waltz and the Foxtrot. I would draw the pupils attention to this and tell them if they have any questions regarding this Basic Technique then by all means ask.
If I were teaching Latin I would have something simular like how important it is in the Rumba and Cha to get a straight knee, and from the front on a Rumba Walk only one leg should be seen.
In all the years I have been dancing I have never once seen anything like the above in any studio I have been to. Have any of you.
I think from the above it would convey right from the beginning to those interested, that in ballroom dancing there is more going on than just walking to music.
If it was not possible to display on the wall I would always have print outs available for those who were interested.

Serendipidy. I have tried to explain that to people I am teaching as well, regarding the rise and fall. Please inform me of how you would explain it in short, simple terms that would be displayed on a wall so that it would be a quick read. I basically tell them that the Waltz has more bend in the knee on 1 and a very high rise starting on 2 and ending on 3, whereas the rise on Fox Trot's QQ steps is not quite as pronounced, yet very important to get on the balls of your feet and quickly move into the next set of SS. Please share your explanation.

"If I owned a studio I would have printed and framed and hung on the wall instructions on the difference between the rise and fall in the Waltz and the Foxtrot."

There would be some merit in that, but it's not really complete, especially if read casually.

Most teachers choose to handle the incompleteness in person.

If instead you wanted to put it all on the wall, you'd probably have to do things like paint a series of pictures. This would immediately show some things the book leaves out, such as the way that the body does not reach its peak altitude until the end of step two in foxtrot, even though the foot rise that is to be used is completed during step one just as the book says.

"I think from the above it would convey right from the beginning to those interested, that in ballroom dancing there is more going on than just walking to music."

Indeed, but there's also a lot more than is immediately apparent from the book. In some cases - and this has been a good example - obsessively clinging to the book can get in the way of using live resources to fully understand dancing.

Sometimes you have to learn to dance it first, and only then go back and make sense of how the book chose to present that idea.

Anonymous. Mainly nobody would be able to say that that person allowed us to do the basics incorrectly. The instructions would be spoken and the pupils directed to the clearly stated instructions for all to see either on a print out, or better still on the wall. And also ask questions like on a Whisk in the Waltz. Is there any turn for the man on step three. Is there turn for the lady. This they would have been told the first time the Whisk was introduced. I've heard so many times before, Its only a Social class. We don't bother about footwork. What they do bother about is taking the money at the door though.

My anecdotal experience tells me that some of the teachers I have used are very reluctant indeed to part with the "secret knowledge" of how to dance.

They want you to keep coming back, for years on end, paying them for the tiny snippets of technical instruction they are prepared to give out, and won't even give you a proper explanation for a routine that a class is learning. Instead, the routine has to be learned, that is, committed to memory, at the pace of the slowest, and usually step by step, rather than in groups of standard figures (because even the names of most standard figures are part of the "secret knowledge" that you have to pay for years to acquire).

I cut out the middleman, and bought the standard technique books. I look to my teachers to help me work on aspects of technique and style. What they actually DO in most lessons, and certainly in most classes, really has very little to do with teaching dancing, and a great deal to do with earning a living.

Clive, I really do not understand who and or why, anyone would be so clandestine about the teaching of material.

How on earth can any teacher develop a line of instruction without nomenclature ! ?.

You must have come across a very poor e.g. of teaching (?).

From day one , to the 1st step taken-- cardinal rule-- name and demonstrate .

What it implies, is the person(S) in Q, had no formal training in the " art " of teaching.

Terence2,
Sadly, what Clive said struck a cord with me. Running a studio is apparently very expensive, and they have to squeeze every last penny out of the marks...er...students, to keep their heads above the water.

The studio I'm in now is better than my first, but still lacks a level of standardization that would make learning more productive.

The whole organization of the studio seems to lack some sense. They have group classes, but they are purely optional and have no tie to the students progression.

It seems to me, group classes should almost always be taught as progressives, where the steps for a level are taught as a practice routine. Only when the student can perform the routine, should they then take that routine to their private instructor so they can be taught the finer points of actually dancing it. Only when you can perform that routine, and a second created by the student (and early on with the aid of the instructor), to the level of proficiency acceptable to the instructor, can you be allowed to check out of that level for that dance.

Such a progression would prevent something that happens to me time and again, despite my attempts to avoid it. That is, coming up to checkout time and still learning new steps a week or two before checking out. At that point, all efforts should be aimed at technique, not learning new steps.

But I rant...

Now to address the class method-- in todays market, unfortunately , unless a medal type class, the "joe public" are not sufficiently interested in the minutae, that we as pros are trained to give.
Its all about instant dance .
All my classes over the last 2 yrs have been "social " b/room and salsa.I tried one class giving technique in a small dose-- boredom quickly set in-
Todays social dancers want a fun experience with a light atmosphere .
( how things have changed from my early days )

Also-- be very wary of getting caught up in the trap of " routine " dancing .

The whole purpose of a good social dancer is improvisation-- using the material you have been taught and expressing it in your own manner .

I do understand , that in the very early stages, some basic format is going to help in " stringing " things together -- but-- do not make that the be all and end all .

Hmm.

I observe the social dancing of the couples with whom I share classes. They seem singularly unable to break down the "routines" they have leaned, by rote, into groups of figures that can be successfully led on a social floor, as space and other couples require.

As far as I'm concerned, they haven't learned to dance at all. Perhaps that is because they are bad students, or perhaps they have been badly taught.

The Basic footwork must be taught correctly in the beginning if it isn't everything that goes from there on will not be correct. In the main I am refering to Heel Leads, and before a Heal Lead a Toe Heel. Now that isn't too much for the average person to digest is it. This I would have written on the wall, which should indicate to the pupils that there is such a thing as Basic Footwork and we do not walk around the floor pleasing ourselves on how we plant out feet..