About Amateurs Teaching Under NDCA Rules [Archive]

DanceMentor

04-02-2007, 12:21 PM

There was a post by Gary McDonald on the SF Open thread that discussed the idea that amateurs may be allowed to teach under NDCA rules. I just wanted to point out that at this time, there is no formal announcement from the NDCA regarding this matter, so please make sure you are careful about suddenly starting to teach or compete as an amateur (when you have been teaching) until there is a formal announcement from the NDCA.

At this time, it does not appear there has been such an announcement. With all due respect to Gary, this is a very exciting prospect to many, but it is important we have documentation in the form of official published rules before we make decisions about our own dancing careers.

Special Note to Gary:
It is extremely exciting to see you here on the Dance Forums, and we appreciate you taking the time out of your day to share your knowledge, because this is exciting stuff. :)

Current Rules:
Under the current rules for the NDCA, the only amateurs that can teach are...
1. those who reach the top six in the NDCA US National Championships in Standard and Latin and the top three couples in the International 10-Dance.
2. Dancers enrolled in a bona fide collegiate dance degree course which that they teach as a part of their curriculum.

Addition:
I have confirmed the rule must be published in the rulebook to be considered official.

Borbala_Bunnett

04-02-2007, 02:01 PM

To add to the discussion - USA Dance revised its rules, and as of January 1st 2007 all restrictions regarding monetary gain (i.e. amateurs teaching, doing shows, being sponsored etc) have been removed. Any amateur, at any level, can teach and receive payment for it.

Professionals have been defined as those who declare themselves professionals, and enter competitions as a pro - whether in a pro-pro or pro-am partnership.

Throwaway Overshare

04-02-2007, 02:09 PM

Yes, we already knew that because USA Dance promptly published its change.

Any chance that USA Dance, which was present at the January NDCA meeting as the official representative of Amateurs within the NDCA world, could provide confirmation that NDCA has in fact adopted a similar rule?

04-02-2007, 02:12 PM

Isn't there a 500 hour minimum? I thought you could teach up to 500 hours before relinquishing amateur status? This was to help accomodate for practicum situations for teachers in training? Maybe somebody else has that rule...

DanceMentor

04-02-2007, 02:18 PM

callen

04-02-2007, 02:19 PM

latingal

04-02-2007, 02:22 PM

Hmmm....some very interesting points on the impact this rule change would make, but I don't think the aspect regarding pro-am has been fully appreciated.

I know that if I was to run into a pro-am couple(s) that the am was highly skilled and making his/her living teaching ballroom dancing (and dancing in pro-am scholarships), it would take away all incentive for me to pay the huge fees to learn and compete in latin.

And the arguement that the entry fees are large enough to stop this behaviour doesn't hold when the scholarship awards get larger (normally to attract bigger pro-am entries). Remember in SF Open to do one open scholarship, it's likely the couple would have to pay $250 and if they win they would receive $600. That means they would split $350 for dancing 5 dances (assuming they skip the freestyle dances). If you do that for a couple scholarships in a comp and at multiple comps, it seems it would be financially viable.

There were three suspicious situations that I observed in the last year concerning individuals making a living teaching ballroom competing as a "am" in a pro-am couple. Each time, there was a rumble through the pro-am competitors that I know about the fairness of such entries. So I have to conclude that this change in rules could indeed impact the pro-am business. Something that I think should be considered carefully.

Just my two cents...

DanceMentor

04-02-2007, 02:23 PM

Anyone think there's any chance we'll just be able to do away with the amateur/pro distinction anytime soon? To me it just seems silly to have the distinction once the idea behind it ceases to exist.

Christopher

I think if the rule changes it will be a "big thing" when someone switches from Amateur to Pro, as you see in Europe now. Currently, you see pros with little experience competing, and often losing, and amateurs with years of experience that are better than a lot of the pros.

While there may be other considerations, in my opinion, the new rule would make it more meaningful to be a pro, yet open up a lot more opportunities for people that are not ready to compete against the "big guns" yet.

callen

04-02-2007, 02:29 PM

DanceMentor

04-02-2007, 02:40 PM

Assuming there is a rule change, there will be a growth in Amateurs who compete. The cost will be lower, so more people will do it, and also there will be ways for newer teachers to become involved in competing faster.

Maybe even at the studio level there will be more opportunities for students. You could take a private lesson from a qualified amateur for $45 or a professional for $75. Teachers get paid more for what they are worth, and students have different pricing available depending on their financial situation.

And then when a new student competes with a "qualified amateur" they won't have to pay as much for entries as with a "professional". I really see this as a win-win scenario for all.

I know competition owners may be a little scared of this at first, but if they have a little time to get a good plan together, I think they may actually find more people that will come to their competition, especially if they will work hard to educate studios about the new ways that nearly all of their students and instructors can now participate.

For Pros there will be more levels available to them too:
1) Compete as a Qualified Amateur with students before turning pro
2) Compete in Rising Star
3) Compete in Pro
So you will be able to involve instructors faster. If you think about it, instructors that actually compete represent only a small sample of the total instructors accross the USA. The new rule should get instructors involved earlier and in greater numbers and have a greater heiriarchy.

NielsenE

04-02-2007, 02:48 PM

And then when a new student competes with a "qualified amateur" they won't have to pay as much for entries as with a "professional". I really see this as a win-win scenario for all.

I agree with most of your analysis, but this part looks off unless a new category of mixed proficiency is created that allows "qualified amateurs" to compete in a fashion similar to Pro-Am, as the teacher is likely to have placed out of the students level with regard to eligibility...

Throwaway Overshare

04-02-2007, 02:59 PM

I don't really expect there will be much if any effect on pro/am, as I doubt anyone will be granting amateurs permission to work those events.

And that should be a line that's a lot easier to enforce - it's not like you can do pro/am competitions under the table in the same way that people were quietely teaching - especially as NDCA requires that pro/am teachers register in that category before they are allowed to enter competitions with their students.

NielsenE

04-02-2007, 03:02 PM

I wasn't suggesting that pro-am would be changed. Just responding to DanceMentor's thought that you'd see some sort of cheaper competition option for amateur teachers and their students... barring a mixed proficiency circuit its not going to work....

jdm

04-02-2007, 03:12 PM

I agree with most of your analysis, but this part looks off unless a new category of mixed proficiency is created that allows "qualified amateurs" to compete in a fashion similar to Pro-Am, as the teacher is likely to have placed out of the students level with regard to eligibility...

It seems to me that the rule change would benefit most the dance teacher who is interested in competing with a regular partner (either a student or another dance teacher), but has not yet attained the ability level of Rising Star competitions. The amateur proficiency levels would be presumably a stepping stone toward higher level competition for that couple. Because of the age requirements, limitations in number of levels entered, and proficiency points apply to both members of an Amateur couple (unlike Pro-Am), I think this would severely limit a dance teacher being able to dance Am-Am with more than one or two students and/or regular partners.

latingal

04-02-2007, 03:14 PM

Okay, I'm confused....what in this rule change would allow a comp to grant an "amateur" to work a pro-am event? Do we have a disconnect? I was talking about a high level amateur who makes a living teaching ballroom competing as the amateur in the am half of a pro-am couple.

redhead

04-02-2007, 03:20 PM

...NDCA requires that pro/am teachers register in that category before they are allowed to enter competitions with their students.

this rule is often not enforced... don't ask why I know

04-02-2007, 03:21 PM

I wanted to start a ballroom class here, as part of my independent (with DVIDA guidance) teacher training, but will not do this if the NDCA says I will lose my amateur status. Or, maybe I will start it anyway - I can't compete and haven't for a year, with this local guy suing my coach and other area professionals... he's just filed a whole new bunch of stuff, too... eleven pages worth of B.S. I've been forced to travel to study ballroom, but I cannot travel enough to train for competition, nor can my other dancer friends (many who have quit.) So I guess if I were to teach, relinquishing amateur status means nothing. I'll see what my coach's advice is. Honestly, I was scared to teach anyway because the last thing I need is a bogus lawsuit. I know that's 'giving in' but as long as nobody stops this guy (not even the NDCA would act - no offense to Gary here but it's the truth) then ballroom in Mississippi will continue to suffer... rumor has it a brand new independent competition on the Gulf Coast might fold before it even starts because of all of this mayhem.

Anyway, apologies for the rant, and thanks for the heads up! Ignorance is no excuse with these rules and you might have saved me from making a huge mistake!

rainerng

04-02-2007, 03:47 PM

NielsenE

04-02-2007, 04:02 PM

Wait...what? Does that mean that amateurs can get paid to teach dance and still be amateurs and not violate any laws? I am confused...

It depends. Under USA Dance rules, yes. Under currently active NDCA rules no. Under a set of proposed rule changes that seem to be making their way through the NDCA government body, yes.

IANAL, but I don't believe an amateur teaching was breaking any <i>laws</i> (NDCA rules, yes) but local,state,federal laws no.... unless you mean some of those weird laws that have never been repealed but prohibit various bizarre things.... there's probably some out there that would forbid teaching dance...

Kitty

04-02-2007, 04:07 PM

I'd noticed the same opportunity thing as you. I just feel that there will be a heavy overlap between "rising star pro" and "amateur." I think it will be as though there are two distinct groups competing around the same level but never against each other, even though the only thing to differentiate between them is a name.

Another way to say it is that, though I want to agree with you about it becoming a big deal to turn pro, I still see the need for the pro name in pro-am as a major factor. As a result, I don't think it will be as big a deal to become pro as it is in Europe.

Christopher

problem is that some of even teaching amateurs are also going to college, and generally have a back up plan in case "it doesn't work out" to be a successful pro.

if they are not allowed to teach (and actually follow rules) while they are in this "not sure I want to be a pro" stage and then decide they are good enough for turning pro and having a pro dance career, they'll have to suddenly start teaching, instead of building a client base and teaching skills gradually.

evanluck

04-02-2007, 04:29 PM

There were three suspicious situations that I observed in the last year concerning individuals making a living teaching ballroom competing as a "am" in a pro-am couple. Each time, there was a rumble through the pro-am competitors that I know about the fairness of such entries. So I have to conclude that this change in rules could indeed impact the pro-am business. Something that I think should be considered carefully.

Just my two cents...

I understand your concern about the fairness issue in this situation but I would argue that it is dance knowledge and ability that affect teaching and not the other way around.

I have found that teaching, especially the type of students that an amateur competitor would likely be able to attract does not enhance someone's competitive dancing significantly. It is just another income source that has synergy with improving one's own personal dancing.

The fact that someone would choose to use the dance knowledge that they have acquired by pursuing dancing as a competitive amateur to make some money teaching does not give this person an unfair advantage in the context of competition whether they are competing pro-am or am-am. Dancing a box step with a pure beginner or baby sitting a wedding couple for a few hours a week is not going to make me a better competitive dancer. In fact, it probably is going to hurt my competitive dance career due to the extra wear and tear on my body and time it takes away from practice and coaching.

Ask any dance professional who has competed at an elite level. To improve their competitive dance career, they usually consciously make efforts to teach less, and dance pro-am less so they can practice more, take more coachings and focus on their own dancing.

I welcome the change...in the end reasonable and thoughtful activities under this new rule will be good for entire dance industry.

Best Wishes and God Bless,

Evan

----
If life is a dance, then God is the music.

Joe

04-03-2007, 06:55 AM

Assuming there is a rule change, there may be a growth in Amateurs who compete. The cost may be lower, so more people may do it, and also there may be ways for newer teachers to become involved in competing faster.
FTFY. It's very hard for the inertia of cost structures to change...

DanceMentor

04-03-2007, 07:33 AM

I believe there are a lot of amateurs that would teach if they could, and a lot of studios that would give them students if they could. Ballroom dancing will surely grow when you have more people available to teach. Of course, you don't hire just anyone, but there are some amateurs that would make great teachers, and would attract more students. Sure, people like competition organizers will have to adjust, but I have a feeling even they will see more people coming to their competitions when there are fewer restrictions on who can compete.

fascination

04-03-2007, 07:38 AM

Throwaway Overshare

04-03-2007, 08:25 AM

Something that hasn't been brought up, but is possible, is that the rule change might not necessarily apply to elgibility to participate in pro/am events as an amateur, but only to participation in am/am competition. Yes, some of the same enforceability concerns might apply - but the situation is already different, with am/am competitors needing individual registration with NDCA and pro/am competitors still exempt.

I've been over the meeting minutes yet another time, and still can't find anything to support the idea that the rules actually have changed. I did see where Judy Hatton reported that there is effectively a "don't ask don't tell" policy in effect and action is only taken in response to a complaint, and one of the motions that she put on the agenda, but it is listed as having been discussed without any formal motion being made. And USA Dance's motions to address the problem (and a second motion of a $75 joint registration, $15 of it to NDCA) were withdrawn - something that wouldn't make a lot of sense unless there was a plan to pursue another tack, either quietly or some sort of replacement motion that didn't make it into the minutes????

04-03-2007, 09:49 AM

Can anybody here speak from personal experience? Do you actually know of somebody who was reprimanded by the NDCA for teaching and registering as amateur?

Throwaway Overshare

04-03-2007, 09:54 AM

Can anybody here speak from personal experience? Do you actually know of somebody who was reprimanded by the NDCA for teaching and registering as amateur?

Yes

Cal

04-03-2007, 11:22 AM

Can anybody here speak from personal experience? Do you actually know of somebody who was reprimanded by the NDCA for teaching and registering as amateur?

Yes.

saludas

04-03-2007, 11:30 AM

Yes.

and... how did the NDCA find out about this?

Laura

04-03-2007, 11:39 AM

What I find ironic about this whole thing was that the stated reason the NDCA gave years ago for "splitting" with USA Dance (then called USABDA) was that amateurs were teaching and the NDCA wouldn't stand for it!

And now...well...look how it seems to be ending up. I thought way back then that it was all a lot of trouble for nothing, and now it seems the entire premise of the split is now moot (assuming that this rule really goes into effect, of course).

I hope that if it does go into effect, some other discrepancies that have crept into the USA Dance Amateur vs. NDCA Amateur rules will be ironed out, such as the differences in how proficiency points are granted and in how many points a dancer can get before they are forced to move up to the next level.

As for actual Pro/Am, let me point out that USA Dance has never had any real interest in governing it, and that USA Dance rules have no application whatsoever to the amateurs dancing in Pro/Am. This has always been left to the NDCA, and there seems to be a lot of inertia surrounding it. For instance, a number of years ago there was an initiative to make the amateurs dancing in Pro/Am register with the NDCA. This move seemed to be all about making money from the registration fees that would come in from the students, and no one in the NDCA would say that if it also meant that finally Pro/Am eligibility and proficiency levels would be tracked so as to prevent pros from dancing as the am half, and so that sandbagging could be curtailed. Anyway, so many organizers were not in favor of having to charge, collect, and track student registrations that the initiative was dropped.

saludas

04-03-2007, 11:56 AM

Hey, what about 'mixed proficiency'?

DanceScientist

04-03-2007, 12:06 PM

Well, given that teachers can now maintain their amateur status by not competing in Pro-Am or Pro, some teachers who have already competed as Pro with the understanding of the old rules might feel regret and disgruntlement now. What could be done about this?

Laura

04-03-2007, 12:13 PM

Hey, what about 'mixed proficiency'?
That's a very good question, and to me it seems rather dead in the water. Have there been any USA Dance competitions to actually offer it? We've had no demand for it out here in NorCal (only one person has even enquired about it in the past year).

NielsenE

04-03-2007, 12:14 PM

I'm also very interested in seeing how groups like the PDF and the USISTD respond to the changes. Regardless of the official USA Dance and NDCA rules, its important for any dance competitor to be aware of the political landscape and avoid making enemies.

Will the official position of the USISTD be that if amateurs are going to teach they should have completed at least the Student Member Student Teacher or Associate exam? Or will they say they'd rather the Student Member be someone who wishes to see how their knowledge and skills stack up without actually being a professional in all but name, etc

Laura

04-03-2007, 12:14 PM

What could be done about this?
They could request reinstatement to Amateur status.

Cal

04-03-2007, 12:25 PM

and... how did the NDCA find out about this?
I'd noticed an "odd" situation at an NDCA competition and asked the competitor whether s/he was teaching, and asked about how s/he entered the competition as the "am" part of a pro-am couple. The competitor said that s/he was teaching, but didn't think it was breaking rules to compete as an amateur. However, when I saw the same thing happen at another NDCA competition with the same competitor, I made inquiries with the competition organizer. I followed through when the organizer directed me to a specific person in the NDCA for clarification on the question. The NDCA asked the competitor to "choose" between teaching or amateur competition and when the competitor chose amateur compeition, the NDCA "reinstated" the competitor as amateur.

latingal

04-03-2007, 01:01 PM

I understand your concern about the fairness issue in this situation but I would argue that it is dance knowledge and ability that affect teaching and not the other way around.

[...]The fact that someone would choose to use the dance knowledge that they have acquired by pursuing dancing as a competitive amateur to make some money teaching does not give this person an unfair advantage in the context of competition whether they are competing pro-am or am-am.

evanluck, not sure if I need to clarify my original post or I misunderstood yours....I was speaking of situations where it looked suspicious that a pro and an amateur (who was teaching ballroom for a living and very proficient in dancing) paired up as pro-am couple and competed in pro-am competition. Why might this happen? Perhaps a few scholarship prizes might make a comp or two worthwhile, who knows. This is against current NDCA rules.

If a rule change went into effect to change this, there is nothing to stop this type of thing from happening. Which IMO, if it did indeed happen (which would seem likely if we've already had suspicious situations), it is very possible that you will negatively impact your current base of pro-am students (who would spend all that money to go up against a "ringer"?). And we all know, pro-am helps support the ballroom community. Just hoping somebody thought about this before considering this rule change.

DanceScientist

04-03-2007, 01:15 PM

Ahh... USA Dance does not have Pro-Am (?), and the NDCA does. I see... These are new problems!

Laura

04-03-2007, 01:17 PM

latingal, the NDCA does nothing right now to regulate, let alone track, the amateur half of Pro/Am. Also, it's not clear if the rule changes Gary talked about apply only to Amateur couples -- which are already considered to be different from Pro/Am students -- or anyone at all who calls themselves "amateur."

In other words, it's very possible that these alleged rule changes won't have any affect on Pro/Am at all. The situation you are concerned about already could happen, but the high cost of Pro/Am entry fees plus the general stigma against Pro/Am competition keeps it in check.

latingal

04-03-2007, 01:34 PM

it's not clear if the rule changes Gary talked about apply only to Amateur couples -- which are already considered to be different from Pro/Am students -- or anyone at all who calls themselves "amateur."

True Laura. Since there is no official text on this rule change we have no way of knowing right now. Would be very interesting if they chose to define amateur with two different definitions depending on what you compete in (seems that would make a rather confusing mess?).

The situation you are concerned about already could happen, but the high cost of Pro/Am entry fees plus the general stigma against Pro/Am competition keeps it in check.

This indeed could happen because of the lack of enforcement by the competitions and NDCA. I have mentioned that I have seen several suspicious situations already. But because it is currently against the rules, it keeps the situation from happening too often. And regarding entry fees as a barrier to this behavior, I commented on that in an earlier post (higher scholarship winnings can make it viable).

Guess we will have to wait and see what the text is if there is a rule change. And also hope that is was well thought out at the time.

star_gazer

04-03-2007, 01:46 PM

evanluck

04-03-2007, 02:12 PM

evanluck, not sure if I need to clarify my original post or I misunderstood yours....I was speaking of situations where it looked suspicious that a pro and an amateur (who was teaching ballroom for a living and very proficient in dancing) paired up as pro-am couple and competed in pro-am competition. Why might this happen? Perhaps a few scholarship prizes might make a comp or two worthwhile, who knows. This is against current NDCA rules.

If a rule change went into effect to change this, there is nothing to stop this type of thing from happening. Which IMO, if it did indeed happen (which would seem likely if we've already had suspicious situations), it is very possible that you will negatively impact your current base of pro-am students (who would spend all that money to go up against a "ringer"?). And we all know, pro-am helps support the ballroom community. Just hoping somebody thought about this before considering this rule change.

I understand your point more clearly now but I do not see how letting amateurs teach or not letting amateurs teach affects this "ringer" situation that you are describing. With the current rules, where most amateurs are not allowed to teach, it would seem more likely that a pro and a top level amateur may try to team up to win some scholarship money. With the proposed rule change as Gary described it, it seems that top level amateurs would be free to use their dancing knowledge and ability to create income in other ways like performing shows or teaching rather than scheming to win a few hundred dollars and diverting alot of time away from their am/am partnership by preparing something with a pro to dance pro/am.

Kitty

04-03-2007, 02:29 PM

latingal

04-03-2007, 02:33 PM

I understand your point more clearly now but I do not see how letting amateurs teach or not letting amateurs teach affects this "ringer" situation that you are describing. With the current rules, where most amateurs are not allowed to teach, it would seem more likely that a pro and a top level amateur may try to team up to win some scholarship money. With the proposed rule change as Gary described it, it seems that top level amateurs would be free to use their dancing knowledge and ability to create income in other ways like performing shows or teaching rather than scheming to win a few hundred dollars and diverting alot of time away from their am/am partnership by preparing something with a pro to dance pro/am.

Okay, glad I was a bit more clear this time. Actually I would think that the top level amateurs would not be interested in this situation. From what I understood of what Gary said, this was a change of definition for all amatuers (not just top level)? Of course we have not seen any text on this proposed change, so I couldn't say for sure what it will effect.

I'm thinking more of the dancers out there that are currently "pros" (who teach dance for a living) that could be considered amatuers again under this new definition (as long as they did not compete as a pro, or if they got reinstated as an amateur).

But as Laura mentioned in one of the prior posts, we have not seen a definition of this proposed rule change, so I can only hope that it was well thought out to address whatever concerns we all might have.

star_gazer

04-03-2007, 02:52 PM

but does anyone see anything wrong whit that?I don't...but that's my question.

tanya_the_dancer

04-03-2007, 02:57 PM

I believe that the Am winner of the Pro/Am Standard Scholarship at the SF Open also made the quarter final of the Amateur Standard Open at BYU a few weeks ago (both NDCA) with a different partner. Isn't that what you're talking about?

I think the problem would be if a pro half of the couple also compete somewhere else as an am half of a different couple.

star_gazer

04-03-2007, 03:00 PM

I think the problem would be if a pro half of the couple also compete somewhere else as an am half of a different couple.And even with the rule change...by definition, this should not happen.

DanceScientist

04-03-2007, 03:01 PM

But as Laura mentioned in one of the prior posts, we have not seen a definition of this proposed rule change, so I can only hope that it was well thought out to address whatever concerns we all might have.

Well, Gary hasn't chimed into this thread yet. Maybe, he will bring a copy of it to the meeting room when they draft the rule change. :)

latingal

04-03-2007, 03:03 PM

Well, Gary hasn't chimed into this thread yet. Maybe, he will bring a copy of it to the meeting room when they draft the rule change. :)

that is one great thing about a forum eh? Lot's of ideas get kicked around! *grin*

samina

04-03-2007, 03:06 PM

but does anyone see anything wrong whit that?

if the am. dancer isn't teaching, not at all. if so... that definitely makes me uncomfortable. speaking as the am. side of a pro-am team who also wants to compete am-am eventually.

star_gazer

04-03-2007, 03:20 PM

if the am. dancer isn't teaching, not at all. if so... that definitely makes me uncomfortable. speaking as the am. side of a pro-am team who also wants to compete am-am eventually.
Why is it more fair if the am dancer is working at say...Burger King to pay for lessons because she's not allowed to teach?

samina

04-03-2007, 03:26 PM

Why is it more fair if the am dancer is working at say...Burger King to pay for lessons because she's not allowed to teach?

i guess the uncomfortable part for me is that the amateur obviously has enough expertise to teach as a pro.

i'm not black & white on this... i understand the opposite argument. it just definitely makes me uncomfortable. if i'm teaching for pay, i'm no longer an amateur... i'm a professional on some level. and i understand that that there is a gray overlap in ability between the two. but i'm still not thrilled about competing on the same floor with dancers who are teaching.

star_gazer

04-03-2007, 03:32 PM

i guess the uncomfortable part for me is that the amateur obviously has enough expertise to teach as a pro.But that's the point. Some amateurs have enough expertise to teach beginners or perhaps help coach teams. That doesn't mean that they have enough expertise to go pro.

samina

04-03-2007, 03:39 PM

But that's the point. Some amateurs have enough expertise to teach beginners or perhaps help coach teams. That doesn't mean that they have enough expertise to go pro.

i understand. perhaps one day i'll hit that point. ;)

i am persuadable on this issue. i understand the argument for both sides.

Larinda McRaven

04-03-2007, 03:48 PM

Well, Gary hasn't chimed into this thread yet.

Gary is under no obligation to comment any more than he already has. He answered the question truthfully to the best of his ability considering he was in the meeting and a voting voice.

As Dancementor said earlier... Dance Forums is lucky to have him drop in and offer comments on occasion. However he is not a spokesperson for the NDCA and he doesn't owe anyone here any further explaination or justification.

fascination

04-03-2007, 04:13 PM

I am certain that others join me in being grateful

Kitty

04-03-2007, 05:37 PM

i guess the uncomfortable part for me is that the amateur obviously has enough expertise to teach as a pro.

i'm not black & white on this... i understand the opposite argument. it just definitely makes me uncomfortable. if i'm teaching for pay, i'm no longer an amateur... i'm a professional on some level. and i understand that that there is a gray overlap in ability between the two. but i'm still not thrilled about competing on the same floor with dancers who are teaching.

if an amateur is competing at a lower level, then yes, they obviously don't have the expertise...
but at a high level a lot of championship level amateurs have far more expertise than your average chain pro.

at a certain level most good dancers are teaching... partially because they have already mastered the expertise and if they need some cash, they can make it much easier teaching (skilled work) than working at Burger King (unskilled work). Why does that mean they are supposed to turn pro? maybve they are going ot college and want to be an architect when they grow up.

a lot of youth dancers are pretty amazing when they are still under 18, beating adult champ couples. Are they supposed to turn pro then? or are they supposed to be randomly excluded from working as dance teachers, cause it makes it easier to classify them? all the youth dancers + those that teach cause they just like teaching (and don't mind few extra bucks) will have to work in mcDonalds about 4 times the number of hours (and not getting any useful teaching experience while doing it)

in addition prohibiting amateurs from teaching will increase the demand for teachers, while decreasing the supply, as a result inflating rates and sacrificing quality (more "no previous experience required" teachers hired)

samina

04-03-2007, 05:55 PM

yes, that makes a lot of sense, kitty.

DanceScientist

04-03-2007, 06:41 PM

in addition prohibiting amateurs from teaching will increase the demand for teachers, while decreasing the supply, as a result inflating rates and sacrificing quality (more "no previous experience required" teachers hired)

So, do you think full-time dance teachers have something to worry about now? It seems that many of them are having a hard-time making a live as it is!

tanya_the_dancer

04-03-2007, 08:30 PM

But that's the point. Some amateurs have enough expertise to teach beginners or perhaps help coach teams. That doesn't mean that they have enough expertise to go pro.

But isn't teaching for money but still being an amateur a bit like having your cake and eating it, too?

dancesportgirl21

04-03-2007, 08:56 PM

So, do you think full-time dance teachers have something to worry about now? It seems that many of them are having a hard-time making a live as it is!

I hope it will just set the bar higher for standards of teaching.

Laura

04-03-2007, 08:58 PM

Would be very interesting if they chose to define amateur with two different definitions depending on what you compete in (seems that would make a rather confusing mess?).
Confusing to some people, especially newbies, but not necessarily confusing to "the establishment." See, there are a lot of people out there who do not consider Pro/Am dancing to be part of dancesport at all. The amateurs who dance in Amateur partnerships are, in this way of thinking, the "real" amateurs, and the students who dance as the amateur half of a Pro/Am couple are just...people who spend money and dance and aren't worth the time or trouble to deal with in an organizational fashion. So, in this line of thinking, it would be logical to make the change for the "amateurs" and not make any changes for the Pro/Am students.

Not that I agree, though -- I'm just saying that this way of looking at things is already out there and entrenched in some minds.

To reiterate, there is nothing at all in the rules prohibiting a high-level amateur who teaches from teaming up with a Pro and doing Pro/Am. For instance -- and I'm just pulling recognizable names out of the air here -- Maria Manusova could most certainly pair up with Bryan Watson and win every Pro/Am competition on the planet. But they don't and won't because it's simply not worth it to them or to someone who operates at that high a level to do this.

Laura

04-03-2007, 09:02 PM

I believe that the Am winner of the Pro/Am Standard Scholarship at the SF Open also made the quarter final of the Amateur Standard Open at BYU a few weeks ago (both NDCA) with a different partner. Isn't that what you're talking about?
If it is what latingirl is talking about, there is definitely nothing wrong with that -- and there's nothing under the current or the possible new rules that would make this wrong. Especially since the person in question isn't one of the amateurs who teach.

Laura

04-03-2007, 09:04 PM

but does anyone see anything wrong whit that?
No not at all. There are many people who dance simultaneously in Pro/Am and Amateur partnerships. If you've got the time and money and energy for it, then why not do it if it is interesting to you?

Laura

04-03-2007, 09:10 PM

i guess the uncomfortable part for me is that the amateur obviously has enough expertise to teach as a pro.
Samina, I saw a pro this weekend who couldn't get into a Pre-Novice final. This pro has a lot of clients who don't care (or realize) much about expertise or lack thereof.

I've been dancing for over 10 years and probably could teach a bronze level student just fine. I could be a pro (in that sense) if I wanted. But I have absolutely no interest in it. I say this to illustrate a point: that it's not necessarily the case that a teaching amateur has the expertise, and when you get up to the Open Pro/Am level there are a LOT of people who have the knowledge but don't do anything professional with it. I guess my point is that it all kind of doesn't matter, other than that if there are rules in a rule book they should be followed and enforced.

The one place where it does matter to me somewhat is on the entry level, just because to me the idea of knowing there was a "pro" dancing in a Pre-Novice event would be quite unsettling (but as we saw at SF Open this weekend, it's not necessarily an issue in the end when it comes to dance performance).

Laura

04-03-2007, 09:12 PM

Gary is under no obligation to comment any more than he already has. He answered the question truthfully to the best of his ability considering he was in the meeting and a voting voice.
I understand what you are saying Larinda, and also don't exactly expect Gary to take time out of his day to come back here and read this long thread and answer. However, so far I have not found anyone in the world of Pro dancers/competition organizers who knows anything at all about this rule change. I will keep making inquiries through my various contacts, and see if there is a final answer on this.

Laura

04-03-2007, 09:16 PM

So, do you think full-time dance teachers have something to worry about now? It seems that many of them are having a hard-time making a live as it is!
Assuming that the rule change really happens (gotta wait for the 2007 NDCA rule book to see it), then yes, I think *some* full-time dance teachers have something to worry about.

There are plenty of teachers who have students who don't give a fig about competition results, status, etc etc. They just want someone friendly and clever to show them the steps and help them learn a little something. Then there are a number of teachers who have students who are all about status and results. And there are plenty of teachers and students who fall in-between. The teachers who are kind of lower-mid-level -- who don't really have the quality of dance knowledge and ability to back up the prices they charge -- might get squeezed.

Laura

04-03-2007, 09:18 PM

But isn't teaching for money but still being an amateur a bit like having your cake and eating it, too?
By the dictionary definition of "amateur," yes. But by common practice in dancesport world-wide, no.

samina

04-03-2007, 09:59 PM

Maria Manusova could most certainly pair up with Bryan Watson and win every Pro/Am competition on the planet. But they don't and won't because it's simply not worth it to them or to someone who operates at that high a level to do this.

that makes sense

latingal

04-03-2007, 10:11 PM

To reiterate, there is nothing at all in the rules prohibiting a high-level amateur who teaches from teaming up with a Pro and doing Pro/Am. For instance -- and I'm just pulling recognizable names out of the air here -- Maria Manusova could most certainly pair up with Bryan Watson and win every Pro/Am competition on the planet. But they don't and won't because it's simply not worth it to them or to someone who operates at that high a level to do this.

As I mentioned in a previous post, in reply to evanluck, the high level amateurs who are given an exception to teaching for compensation due to their levels is not the class I think that might abuse an amateur status.

And as for who I am talking about, I have tried to be clear about the situations I am speaking to, but I think there are so many discussions going on here at the same time that people are getting confused. And no, I wasn't talking about the specific example you were citing.

fenixx

04-03-2007, 11:44 PM

I dont think teaching and "being good" having anything to do with one another. I think many people can cite examples of "pros" who are not very good dancers in their own right but make their living teaching. I also think many people can cite "amateurs" who are good and may or may not make a living as a teacher. The point is, whether you make your living (or part of your living) as a dance teacher or not, it has no bearing on how good or proficient you are at dancing.

I believe Kitty brought up the example of the youth dancers (when I say youth I refer to every dancer under 21). Any youth dancer above gold has more knowledge and experience than most studio professionals. As a former youth dancer, I would cringe when I would watch the "pro" category at local competitions because these pros danced worse than the pre-champ couples. The important thing I took away from that experience is the understanding that professional is not a level but choice - a choice to signal to other people that you plan to use dancing as a means of living. It does not imply that the person is a "good" dancer. (And I know "good" is a loaded term).

Ultimately, I think it is important to eliminate the barriers to teaching and competing. In the end, the title of amateur or professional should simply signal whether the person has decided to make this their life goal or not. The top amateurs in the world are really pros but because of the system retain the title of amateur. I think if the barriers are removed, there will be less reason for these people to keep calling themselves amateurs (besides it being a badge of honor).

The question I would like to address is how the collegiate dance community views this change? Since currently there is no de facto governing body for college comps, in theory a pro could compete. I have heard of amateurs suspected of teaching being disqualified from college comps even though I have never seen rules prohibiting this behavior. I am also aware that many colleges have their veteran dancers "mentor" or do some other form of free teaching. Do you think their will be a shift toward paid teaching if these rules change? If there are college competitors, organizers, etc. out there I would love to hear your input.

ACtenDance

04-04-2007, 12:08 AM

I am also aware that many colleges have their veteran dancers "mentor" or do some other form of free teaching. Do you think their will be a shift toward paid teaching if these rules change? If there are college competitors, organizers, etc. out there I would love to hear your input.

I also had this concern, but in the end hopefully everyone will realize that donating time to an organization that introduces so many people to dancing is very important and very worth while. While I will take money for a private lesson, I will always give my time freely to teach a weekly newcomer or bronze class. On the other hand, there are many good dancers that distance themselves from collegiate teams once they reach a certain level since group classes no longer offer them much benefit. Perhaps the incentive of teaching for pay within the group will help bring these types of people back into the fold.

evanluck

04-04-2007, 02:06 AM

But isn't teaching for money but still being an amateur a bit like having your cake and eating it, too?

Depends on how you define being an amateur. You would never call a college basketball player who taught lessons in basketball a professional. If dancesport aspires to attain the legitimacy of other spectator sports it would seem smart to change the definition of professional to someone who chooses to compete at the professional level rather than someone who can find someone else who wants to pay them for dance lessons.

Then maybe someday we can grow the sport to the point where someone can make a living by purely competing rather than just competing to increase their reputation so that they can eventually retire and make their money teaching and dancing pro-am.

latingal

04-04-2007, 03:21 AM

Okay, I certainly don't want to ruffle feathers here, because in the end as a pro-am student I am going to end up voting with my wallet, so what everybody decides here is not going to effect my personal decision as to whether the NDCA has set up a fair environment that I would invest my time and money in (after a rule change - if it should happen).

BUT:

Why even have "amateur" as a classification then? It would seem that the term amateur would no longer fit this "new" world of dancesport that is being discussed.

If everybody can accept monetary compensation (or as evanluck points to a future where you enter competitions to make a living), why aren't the pros and amatuers just called major and minor leagues, or the A and B groups, or whatever? It would seem to me they should just relinquish the use of the term amateur and let another organization handle the pure amateurs then. Why take away a pure, actual amateur playing field from the entire industry because somebody wants to change the rules for the current structure?

And evanluck, in your analogy with basketball players - at least there the terms professional and amateur still has different meanings yes? A pro player is paid a salary to play for a team. As far as I know, the college amateur is not paid a salary to play for a college (but may recieve a scholarship in the true sense of the word).

Joe

04-04-2007, 06:35 AM

Fenixx brings up some good points. A good dancer is not necessarily a good teacher, and vice versa. A lot of making a living at teaching dance is marketing, not necessarily dance skill.

As far as college veterans, I don't think that many of those who mentor college teams (or individuals) currently gratis do so with any kind of expectation of remuneration (although there may be some kind of quid pro quo). I don't really see anything to change that. They do it because the kids need the help and are usually too broke to afford professional help.

samina

04-04-2007, 07:32 AM

why aren't the pros and amatuers just called major and minor leagues, or the A and B groups, or whatever?

that's an interesting idea... i find that appealing

but perhaps that's just what "amateur" and "pro" already conveys, then, in the world of dancesport...

fascination

04-04-2007, 07:33 AM

(ducks)b/c we already seem to have that....running for cover

tanya_the_dancer

04-04-2007, 09:16 AM

Depends on how you define being an amateur. You would never call a college basketball player who taught lessons in basketball a professional. If dancesport aspires to attain the legitimacy of other spectator sports it would seem smart to change the definition of professional to someone who chooses to compete at the professional level rather than someone who can find someone else who wants to pay them for dance lessons.

Then maybe someday we can grow the sport to the point where someone can make a living by purely competing rather than just competing to increase their reputation so that they can eventually retire and make their money teaching and dancing pro-am.

To make just competing a viable way to make living, there has to be an organization which pays a salary to any professionally competing couple, since cash prizes go only to the top couples in a competition. I've no idea how it works in other sports, but apparently professional players get some sort of annual salary, otherwise they would have to find another way to support themselves.

FeetwithaBeat

04-04-2007, 09:23 AM

Admitedly I haven't read every post on this board, but have gone back a few pages. Some issues I haven't seen here include:

1. The impact this ruling could have on the newer Pro/Am couple. There are students taking lessons in studios who enjoy "competing" for the fun of it, enjoy having a goal to work toward, a chance to work hard at something they enjoy, the thrill of being on the competition floor -- a hobby if you will -- not a career, not something they choose to make money from, but a fun pastime. So those just getting into the Pro/Am Scholarships or DanceSport (aka Superbowl) divisions will be squashed out. If that's the case then some "amateurs" may decide against competition entirely. This would certainly have some financial impact on organizers, but more so on the "pro" half of the pro/am couple.

2. What happens to the newer teachers who have had to register as pros in order to compete Pro/Am at competitions? Yes many of them are newer and have less experience (but how else are they going to get it? Not everyone has had the advantage of being born into a dancing family or being raised in a country where dancing is taught to kids). This generation of teachers may have great potential as high level teachers/competitors. What happens to this generation? It seems that the general bias here is that they should remain pro. Then they too will get squashed in the melee. These teachers didn't have a choice here, in order to fulfill their job obligaitons (competing with ther students) they HAD to register as pros. They were trying to follow the rules in place at the time. Will they suffer financially, OH YEAH.

3. What about the B, and C age divisions? What's going to happen there? Will they still exist? There seems to be a good amount entries in these divisions. I can't imagine someone in their 40's or 50's deciding to begin teaching or coaching dance. Not that these folks aren't in incredible physical shape and don't have an immense knowledge of what they do, but are they willing to haul the beginner student around the floor until they get the bug or decide they want to compete? (Before I get jumped, I'm referring to the locations where the majority of students who enter dance studios do so for social dancing and then work up to competition. In many locations the percentage of competing students is very small compared to the social students the opportunity to teach/coach other high level students is very small)

4. And just because someone has knowledge and skill in a subject doesn't automatically make them a "teacher." Maybe I'm just old fashioned but isn't learning how to teach just as important as how to perform?

Sorry for the long post -- Have at me :)

Laura

04-04-2007, 09:36 AM

Why even have "amateur" as a classification then? It would seem that the term amateur would no longer fit this "new" world of dancesport that is being discussed.
Exactly.

Why take away a pure, actual amateur playing field from the entire industry because somebody wants to change the rules for the current structure?
This has already happened in many many other sports. For instance, in figure skating, there has been no such thing as "amateur" for over a decade now. Instead, people are called "Olympic eligible" or "ineligible." The difference between the two has to do with which competitions you enter and which shows you do. So long as you do things on the International Skating Union's/US Figure Skating Association's "okay" list, you maintain your eligibility. This is the direction dancesport appears to be going in.

Laura

04-04-2007, 09:40 AM

but perhaps that's just what "amateur" and "pro" already conveys, then, in the world of dancesport...
Not really, because the highest-level amateurs are as good or as better as good pros too. Look at Victor Fung's, Liene Apale's, Igor Abraskin's etc. success as both an amateur and a pro.

Also, even amongst people who really are amateurs, there are many who don't even consider levels below Open Championship level to be "amateurs." They are just...nothing. I cannot tell you how many people came up to me at Nationals, a 3-day-long all-amateur competition, and said "what were there results for the Amateur Latin" and were kind of dumbfounded when I asked them what level and age group and reminded them that everyone at this competition was an amateur. There's a lot of weird culture surrounding all this that a lot of us don't know about and don't understand.

Kitty

04-04-2007, 10:17 AM

well, the culture is, if you are discussing any level other than champ, they'll specify the level and age: "what were the results of prechamp latin?" or or what were the results of senior standard?" (assuming champ)
"amateur latin" is short for "amateur A championship latin"
youth usually is called just youth, and not "amateur youth" cuase there is no non-amateur youth, senior is usually called senior, so the term amateur is reserved for adult amateur (championship if not specified otherwise.
partially because this is how this level is called at big international comps that don't have other levels and age categories (maybe only rising star amateur, then you can say rising star), partially because it really does make sense and after you get used to it. Champ is the "open" category anyone can dance, so it has least number of identifiers to it when you are specifying an event. the age categoies and levels are all practically restrictions you need to mention.

DanceScientist

04-04-2007, 10:39 AM

why aren't the pros and amatuers just called major and minor leagues, or the A and B groups, or whatever?

I like that too.

Also, with the influx of amateur teachers, some percentage of full-time pros may be squeezed to part-time work. It may get to a situation where few competitive dancers can truly make a living teaching, and the vast majority of dancers teach part-time with other sources of income. Would it make sense that some of these part-time teachers are classified as amateurs, and others pro?

Kitty

04-04-2007, 10:50 AM

I like that too.

Also, with the influx of amateur teachers, some percentage of full-time pros may be squeezed to part-time work. It may get to a situation where few competitive dancers can truly make a living teaching, and the vast majority of dancers teach part-time with other sources of income. Would it make sense that some of these part-time teachers are classified as amateurs, and others pro?

this is partially true and happening in Europe.
however good pros and amateurs are always in demand, and other things equal best ones are still going to be booked. The ones that are less booked will have to lower prices to be competitive, thus making dance more affordable for beginners in need of basic inistruction.

SDsalsaguy

04-04-2007, 11:03 AM

this is partially true and happening in Europe.
however good pros and amateurs are always in demand, and other things equal best one are still going to be booked. The ones that are less booked will have to lower prices to be competitive, thus makin dance more affordable for beginners in need of basic inistruction.
I have to say I agree with Kitty on this one. Yes, it might hurt some of the "pros" who are over charging for their own worth, but the ones who make relatively "big" money, and deserve to, will still be in equal demand from those "in the know."

The real impact will come on the other side, where those with minimal training but officially "pro" (because officially "teacher") will now have their prices undercut by those "ams" with 10-20-100+ times the experience and knowledge. As such the average beginner will probably end up paying less for superior instruction so, on the whole, I really think this benefits and helps build the ballroom community at large.

fascination

04-04-2007, 11:38 AM

Laura

04-04-2007, 11:50 AM

The other thing I wanted to say was that, whatever chaos would be introduced at first, if proficiency level rules are established, followed, and enforced then it would quickly sort itself out over a year or two and then we would have the merit-based system that many people have expressed positive interest in over the years. I've actually been in favor of completely collapsing the "difference" between amateur and pro, and having proficiency and age levels sort it all out. Pro/Am could be redone as some kind of variation of "mixed proficiency" (the current USA Dance regulations on this might not be sufficient), and then we could all just go dance. It wouldn't be pretty at first, but I think in the end it could be a very nice system.

wooh

04-04-2007, 12:08 PM

fascination

04-04-2007, 12:11 PM

ya know, none of it keeps me from my goals of being a better dancer so I am trying not to be invested in any particular solution...but it sure would be nice to be able to focus on it for a living and to not have to dance pro/pro

fascination

04-04-2007, 12:12 PM

yes I want to eat my cake

fenixx

04-04-2007, 12:23 PM

I too am for a merit-based system. I have expressed this desire to a few people, but I have not received positive feedback. I have been quietly working on an algorithm based on the ELO system (which is how people are ranked in chess and squash). It gets a little tricky because when you dance you aren't exactly head to head, but I think it can work. Under an ELO system, people would get a ranking from say 0 to 7 in increments of .5. A person competing at the "pro" level would qualify under this system. Say people ranked 6.0 and higher would be eligible for pro comps. This ranking system is relative which is how our current system works anyway. The difference between a relative ranking system and a point system is under a point system, no matter who you beat you get points, while under an ELO ranking system, your ranking changes depending on who you beat.

It is important to note that ranking is not used to determine your place amongst every dancer in the country (ie, if you are a 3.5 you would be ranked 14,321 in the US). The system's purpose is to generate a rating for you, like a 3.5, so when you go compete you would be up against other 3.5 (+- .5 lets say) dancers. This might be the gold level.

tanya_the_dancer

04-04-2007, 12:24 PM

that was my implication as well SD...and if I could dance AM/AM and be a teacher, I would in a heartbeat...and while I wouldn't be the least little threat to a top level pro, there are some newb pros and otherwise that I could hold my own with quite nicely and I am certain that is true of many around here....we will see...personally, it is neither here nor there to me but, it would certainly give me pause if it was an option

I was told several times that I could be a teacher if I wanted to. And I wouldn't mind it, but I make more doing what I do now. Also, I have no chance of ever having a reliable, good quality, am/am partnership, so my only competitive option is pro-am.

samina

04-04-2007, 12:29 PM

Also, I have no chance of ever having a reliable, good quality, am/am partnership, so my only competitive option is pro-am.

why is that, i wonder...

fascination

04-04-2007, 12:29 PM

well, I have spent a lifetime getting my masters but it isn't a particularly well paying field and I could see myself wanting an extended break from it...and b/c dh makes a nice income, if I could find an am partner and teach I would do it in a flash

saludas

04-04-2007, 12:36 PM

Why is everybody assuming that the am teachers will charge LESS than the pros?

We all know that price has no bearing on quality of instruction (just look at the prices at the local Arthur Murray's for THEIR 6 week wonders vs an independant teacher) but the marketplace will reward only good teachers (hopefully) and the poor ones will suffer. With a wider selection, prices will not go down for the best instruction, but it might make room for more pricing differences. The less qualified pros, having competition from more active and qualified amateurs, might do more beginners or such, where before they might have been the 'only game in town'.

The students will quickly gravitate to the teachers that give the best instruction. These may be the new teachers, or the older ones, but the 'exclusivity' of a pro will not protect them from competition...

tanya_the_dancer

04-04-2007, 12:39 PM

why is that, i wonder...

Because I am married and live in a not very populous area where there aren't many opportunities for dancing as it is, but mainly because I am married and I don't think my husband would be happy if I started practicing with someone else. And he is not the best dance partner for me, just the way life turned out.

samina

04-04-2007, 12:39 PM

fascination

04-04-2007, 12:42 PM

Because I am married and live in a not very populous area where there aren't many opportunities for dancing as it is, but mainly because I am married and I don't think my husband would be happy if I started practicing with someone else. And he is not the best dance partner for me, just the way life turned out.
bummer...I am grateful that dh is the sort of soul who knows that we are incompatible as dance partners for a variety of reasons...still, living where we are...the choices are very limited...I am looking forward to the day when our dtr is at school and we move back downtown...and i have better access to Am/guys

Laura

04-04-2007, 01:28 PM

Why is everybody assuming that the am teachers will charge LESS than the pros?
EXCELLENT question!

We all know that price has no bearing on quality of instruction (just look at the prices at the local Arthur Murray's for THEIR 6 week wonders vs an independant teacher) but the marketplace will reward only good teachers (hopefully) and the poor ones will suffer.
The Arthur Murray near where I take lessons charges $80/hour, which is more than I've ever paid for a teacher (except for super-respected top-ranked high-level pro competitors, of course).

The students will quickly gravitate to the teachers that give the best instruction.
Not necessarily. Or maybe I should say "it depends on what that each person thinks of as "best." I say this because I know of a teacher in another town who gets clients because he can teach in a foreign language. He does not have the teaching/dancing skills of other available teachers in his area...yet there are beginning students who love him and book lots of lessons with him because he can teach in their language. I guess maybe his language skills are enough of an offset...and of course there are people out there with different goals and levels of awareness who don't want/need much as compared to the average denizen of this board.

the 'exclusivity' of a pro will not protect them from competition...
Definitely.

tanya_the_dancer

04-04-2007, 02:28 PM

Why is everybody assuming that the am teachers will charge LESS than the pros?

EXCELLENT question!

Increased supply should drive the prices down a bit. Maybe not for top-quality teachers, but for "bottom-middle of the line", probably yes.

candle

04-04-2007, 04:40 PM

Increased supply should drive the prices down a bit. Maybe not for top-quality teachers, but for "bottom-middle of the line", probably yes.

I agree. The basic laws of economics should apply even in ballroom. If we do get quite a few more people who want to teach we should see lower prices on average.

Top people will still charge top prices. Chain studios will still sell hard to get their pricing. But outside those areas we should see improvement, especially for entry level students.

swan

04-04-2007, 06:23 PM

The Arthur Murray near where I take lessons charges $80/hour, which is more than I've ever paid for a teacher (except for super-respected top-ranked high-level pro competitors, of course).Definitely.

Actually $80/hour is the current $60/45 minutes. I'm sure most average pros charge that much these days. Haven't seen many drop below that price tag.

I did hear one time some Riverside or LA area chain studios charge the outrageous $100/hour, now that's ridiculous! I've paid more than $100/hour, but that's high level pro coaching, very different.

I'd agree with Candle about the supply & demand theory. It should be more affordable for newcomers. That's not a bad thing in the long run - produce more the demand at the end ;)

tanya_the_dancer

04-04-2007, 09:00 PM

Actually $80/hour is the current $60/45 minutes. I'm sure most average pros charge that much these days. Haven't seen many drop below that price tag.

I did hear one time some Riverside or LA area chain studios charge the outrageous $100/hour, now that's ridiculous! I've paid more than $100/hour, but that's high level pro coaching, very different.

I'd agree with Candle about the supply & demand theory. It should be more affordable for newcomers. That's not a bad thing in the long run - produce more the demand at the end ;)

There is some fluctuation here, but in our area average price is $55 per hour (60 minutes).

Gary McDonald

04-04-2007, 09:31 PM

Wow......did I open a can of worms or what!!! Okay, so after reading the last 12 pages I decided to talk to the NDCA President Brian McDonald directly so that you don't think I started something without finishing it. I found out that the discussion we had at the last meeting was to agree unanimously that it is no longer possible for VP Judi Hatton to police the situation of amateurs teaching and that it is looking like a lost cause trying to fight it. I voted in agreeance of this. USA Dance delegates in attendance stated that they no longer have a qualifying requirement for there members to teach so in other words anyone can teach. There was no formal motion put forward by the NDCA but they did agree with the way USA Dance is handling this and I am sure that they will do likewise very soon. The NDCA's relationship with USA Dance is stronger now than it has been in a long time. There are literally hundreds of amateurs currently teaching which is too high of a number for any organization to do anything about. I will keep you updated of any news as soon as I hear more.

fascination

04-04-2007, 09:54 PM

thanks Gary...I trust this will not make you gun shy about posting further...we are grateful

reb

04-04-2007, 10:28 PM

Thanks Gary!

This may be one of the best forums around.

Throwaway Overshare

04-04-2007, 10:30 PM

Many thanks, Gary

I had figured you were describing things as you remembered them, but was troubled by the conflict with the published minutes. I could easily suspect that the politics don't support formalizing the change yet, which explains why I couldn't find any approved motion, but I do see plenty in the minutes to back up the "lost cause" viewpoint as you chose to describe it, so it's nice to be able to stop worrying about conflicting information.

As for the practical impact... I would have prefered something more formal and official, but I guess this makes it safe enough to start doing NDCA comps.

RIdancer82

04-04-2007, 10:48 PM

Actually $80/hour is the current $60/45 minutes. I'm sure most average pros charge that much these days. Haven't seen many drop below that price tag.

I did hear one time some Riverside or LA area chain studios charge the outrageous $100/hour, now that's ridiculous! I've paid more than $100/hour, but that's high level pro coaching, very different.

I'd agree with Candle about the supply & demand theory. It should be more affordable for newcomers. That's not a bad thing in the long run - produce more the demand at the end ;)

Sounds like a deal. The going rate in this area is about $85/45 mins and up. Very very few pros in this area teach hour long lessons.

Laura

04-05-2007, 01:31 AM

I found out that the discussion we had at the last meeting was to agree unanimously that it is no longer possible for VP Judi Hatton to police the situation of amateurs teaching and that it is looking like a lost cause trying to fight it. I voted in agreeance of this. USA Dance delegates in attendance stated that they no longer have a qualifying requirement for there members to teach so in other words anyone can teach. There was no formal motion put forward by the NDCA but they did agree with the way USA Dance is handling this and I am sure that they will do likewise very soon.
Thank you so much for coming back here and going over this again for us. We really appreciate you getting the clarification.

DanceScientist

04-05-2007, 02:26 AM

A former teacher of Arthur Murray in San Jose said they charged $129 per 45-minute lesson! However, this price included free parties and group classes that are restricted to only private lesson students. You pay for the lessons, and you're into the family. :)

Joe

04-05-2007, 06:32 AM

I was told several times that I could be a teacher if I wanted to. And I wouldn't mind it, but I make more doing what I do now.
Bingo.

marianya

04-05-2007, 10:45 AM

I was told several times that I could be a teacher if I wanted to. And I wouldn't mind it, but I make more doing what I do now.But sometimes it would be nice to have that slightly extra income on the side, or keep the lower level dance skills fresh by teaching with students every now and then. It's similar to back in the days when I did an insane amount of teaching/tutoring (not in dance), I find it better for me in the long run being able to help others through the lower levels of the curriculum because it helps enforce those concepts and ideas in my own mind so I don't forget as I continue to move up the ranks.

So this possibility of being able to teach but keep an amateur "title" appeals to me as such that I do not desire to turn pro anytime soon but allows me to saturate my love of teaching without having to pursue it as a full time occupation or jeapordizing (sp?) my own goals. That and the fact that my day job keeps me sane half the day while dancing does the other half. Without it I'd seriously go nuts.

bluetango

04-05-2007, 12:29 PM

I have always felt that the amateurs can't teach rule hurts a lot of genuine amateur dancers, who need to earn some money on the side, and decide to use a skill they've cultivated for some years. We've all paid so much money to the ballroom world to get where we are, is it so bad to earn a fraction of that back?

This is especially difficult on collegiate competitors. I have known a few who decided to teach on the side, and as a result got disqualified from collegiate competition - even after having quit that job.

In my mind, doing something professionally means that is your main career. However, a student who wants to earn a little extra cash by teaching dance at a local studio or whatnot - hardly qualifies as a professional.

I'm glad to see that this silly rule is finally being revoked.

Laura

04-05-2007, 12:36 PM

I'm glad to see that this silly rule is finally being revoked.
It hasn't been officially -- yet -- but it seems that the NDCA agrees it's not worth the time or trouble to enforce it. I'm guessing it will take another meeting and vote or two to get it officially off the books.

SDsalsaguy

04-05-2007, 12:56 PM

It hasn't been officially -- yet -- but it seems that the NDCA agrees it's not worth the time or trouble to enforce it. I'm guessing it will take another meeting and vote or two to get it officially off the books.
My understanding as well Laura. (With the next NDCA meeting scheduled for June.)

NielsenE

04-05-2007, 01:02 PM

I'm just glad that they are considering revoking a rule they don't plan to enforce. There's just about nothing I hate more than selective enforcement, or having the threat of enforcement of a ignored rule....

rainerng

04-16-2007, 12:02 AM

Chris Stratton

04-16-2007, 12:05 AM

It is my understanding that NDCA is the organization that governs of pros and USA DANCE is the org that governs amateurs. Is this correct?

If so, then why would amateurs need to worry about what the NDCA rulebook is? If the rules of USA DANCE permit amateurs to do paid teaching, then shouldnt it be game set match?

The NDCA sanctions many full-spectrum (pro, pro/am, amateur) competitions, at which their rules and registration requirement rather than USA Dance's apply.

star_gazer

04-16-2007, 12:11 AM

It is my understanding that NDCA is the organization that governs of pros and USA DANCE is the org that governs amateurs. Is this correct?

If so, then why would amateurs need to worry about what the NDCA rulebook is? If the rules of USA DANCE permit amateurs to do paid teaching, then shouldnt it be game set match?
NDCA competitions include pros, pro/ams and amateurs. Lots of good competitions. The NDCA Amateur Nationals were in Utah in March. USA DANCE competitions are for amateurs. The USA Dance Nationals will be in Kentucky in August. If you do a lot of competitions...most likely, you will deal with both.

rainerng

04-16-2007, 12:28 AM

Borbala_Bunnett

04-16-2007, 12:52 AM

Thanks that clears things up. So as things stand right at this moment, you could get paid for teaching and still retain amateur status and participate in USA dance comps, but the same amateur dancer is not allowed to dance amateur events in NDCA comps. Is that right?

Actually that is not 100% correct.

Under recent rule changes, amateurs under BOTH the USA Dance and NDCA rules are allowed to teach. *Disclaimer: the NDCA rule change to allow amateurs to teach has been discussed, but according to our best collective knowledge (that has been posted on DF) it has not been finalized yet.*

In order to compete at either organization's competitions, a competitor needs to be registered with that organization. i.e. in order to dance at USA Dance events you need to be a USA Dance member; and to dance at an NDCA comp you need to be an NDCA member.

Many (if not most) amateur competitors are registered with both organizations so they have access to more competitions and resources.

latingal

04-16-2007, 01:03 AM

Under recent rule changes, amateurs under BOTH the USA Dance and NDCA rules are allowed to teach.

Hi Borbala! This subject came up regarding the NDCA rules for amateurs teaching on the SF Open thread and then moved here to it's own thread. Unless something has changed since then (a couple of weeks ago?), I don't think there's been an official change in the NDCA rulebook; as far as I understand the old rules about amateurs not teaching still apply.

Gary McDonald was nice enough to come on thread (post #104) and tell us some recent discussions regarding possible rule changes (and not trying to enforce rules), but I don't think the rule had been changed at that point.

Is there more current information that we are not aware of?

Borbala_Bunnett

04-16-2007, 01:46 AM

Hi LatinGal,

You know, I do not have any more recent information on the rule. To be 100% accurate in my response, I will insert a disclaimer that the NDCA has yet to finalize this rule change.

However, given that amateurs teaching (whether under NDCA or USA Dance rules) has been going on for a while, I see the NDCA approval to be more of a formality than anything else.

I will reach out to Brian McDonald (President of the NDCA) to see if I can get a definitive answer.

Terpsichorean Clod

04-22-2007, 05:43 PM

Found this on the California State Same-Sex Championship website

http://caldancechamp.com/faq.html#pro_am

We are making NO distinction between Professional dancers and Amateur dancers. All couples will compete on an equal footing, so to speak.

There are two main reasons for this. The first is practical: Right now, the same-sex dance community is the United States is small (but growing) and dividing Professionals from Anatuers doesn't really make sense.

The second reason is that defining 'Professional' is tricky. In many cases a person is teaching other same-sex couples for no other reason than the straight dance world around them won't teach same-sex couples and they are the best dancer around. Soooo, they end up teaching. The NDCA's (National Dance Council of American) definition of Professional is simply too narrow (a lot like their too narrow definition of a couple, but I digress) to work in our dance community.

kan_shen

06-03-2007, 08:04 AM

For the USA Dance part, is the rule change stated in the newest rulebook? Or could someone post the relevant official web link?

Actually that is not 100% correct.

Under recent rule changes, amateurs under BOTH the USA Dance and NDCA rules are allowed to teach. *Disclaimer: the NDCA rule change to allow amateurs to teach has been discussed, but according to our best collective knowledge (that has been posted on DF) it has not been finalized yet.*

In order to compete at either organization's competitions, a competitor needs to be registered with that organization. i.e. in order to dance at USA Dance events you need to be a USA Dance member; and to dance at an NDCA comp you need to be an NDCA member.

Many (if not most) amateur competitors are registered with both organizations so they have access to more competitions and resources.

kan_shen

06-03-2007, 08:42 AM

Where did USA Dance publish this change? I wasn't able to find it in the newest rule book. Could someone give an official web link? Many thanks!

Yes, we already knew that because USA Dance promptly published its change.

Laura

06-03-2007, 10:02 AM

You can access the latest version of the USA Dance rules at http://www.usabda.org/dancesport_competitors/index.cfm

FeetwithaBeat

06-03-2007, 10:11 AM

contracheck

06-03-2007, 10:17 AM

Actually that is not 100% correct.

Under recent rule changes, amateurs under BOTH the USA Dance and NDCA rules are allowed to teach.

If I enter a competition with an amateure teacher, do I enter as Am-Am or Pro-Am?

Laura

06-03-2007, 10:22 AM

If you enter a Pro/Am competition with an amateur teacher, then the amateur teacher is in effect declaring themself a pro and so loses their amateur status in the NDCA and USA Dance.

Of course, you could enter in an amateur event, but you have to follow all the proficiency level rules unless you are somewhere that a "mixed proficiency" event is offered. So, if your teacher is Championship-level in a style, you can't enter below Championship in that style (unless, of course, it is a mixed proficiency event).

contracheck

06-03-2007, 10:23 AM

I have always felt that the amateurs can't teach rule hurts a lot of genuine amateur dancers, who need to earn some money on the side, and decide to use a skill they've cultivated for some years.

I suspect that, in fear of their share of pies getting smaller, the powerful Professinal community will fight with their teeth and nails against the rule change

contracheck

06-03-2007, 10:27 AM

There are literally hundreds of amateurs currently teaching which is too high of a number for any organization to do anything about. I will keep you updated of any news as soon as I hear more.

Reminds me of enforcing the immigration law against 12 million illegal immigrants. Usually, it's hard to stop the tide.

Throwaway Overshare

06-03-2007, 10:30 AM

I suspect that, in fear of their share of pies getting smaller, the powerful Professinal community will fight with their teeth and nails against the rule change

No, that would be the unpowerful professinals.

The powerful professionals... where does their money come from? It comes from their students. Where does their students money come from? From teaching their own students.

contracheck

06-03-2007, 11:12 AM

No, that would be the unpowerful professinals.

The powerful professionals... where does their money come from? It comes from their students. Where does their students money come from? From teaching their own students.

Nice food chain theory. I've heard several professionals complaining about undergrund amateure teachers taking students away from them - No rule changes, not over our dead bodies, they say. Some pros in high demand, of course, do well under any circumstances.

Throwaway Overshare

06-03-2007, 11:23 AM

Nice food chain theory. I've heard several professionals complaining about undergrund amateure teachers taking students away from them - No rule changes, not over our dead bodies, they say. Some pros in high demand, of course, do well under any circumstances.

Yes, those are the professionals who can't compete against amateurs.

The important ones can... and they need their students to keep earning money.

And don't forget that the real cash cow - competitive pro-am - is still a professional reserve. What's been lost is mostly the low-wage grunt work.

kan_shen

06-03-2007, 11:32 AM

Many thanks! The rule book itself is too long for me ;)
But all the relevant info is clearly stated in the overview.

You can access the latest version of the USA Dance rules at http://www.usabda.org/dancesport_competitors/index.cfm

SDsalsaguy

06-03-2007, 11:39 AM

I contacted a source in the know at NDCA after the SF Open episode and was told by this VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE and IN THE LOOP NDCA board member thast NDCA was standing by it's ruling that amateurs with Elite status were the ONLY amateurs allowed to teach for money AND still compete as amatuers at NDCA events.
Given that the elite status was a USABDA one (vs. the NDCA's "World Class Competitor" status) being "in the loop" doesn't seem to mean being clear about the issues. ;)

contracheck

06-03-2007, 11:45 AM

Yes, those are the professionals who can't compete against amateurs.

The important ones can... and they need their students to keep earning money.

And don't forget that the real cash cow - competitive pro-am - is still a professional reserve. What's been lost is mostly the low-wage grunt work.

I agree. There are some Admiral-class pros who will do well in any situation but there are also thousands upon thousands of common-sailor class of pros who will find making living off dancing is difficult when the cheap but good Am teachers flood the market. Life is tough everywhere.

Laura

06-03-2007, 11:47 AM

Many thanks! The rule book itself is too long for me ;)
But all the relevant info is clearly stated in the overview.
Don't forget to read the NDCA rule book for their information, as their published rules are currently different. See www.ndca.org

Throwaway Overshare

06-03-2007, 11:55 AM

I agree. There are some Admiral-class pros who will do well in any situation but there are also thousands upon thousands of common-sailor class of pros who will find making living off dancing is difficult when the cheap but good Am teachers flood the market. Life is tough everywhere.

Not really. Most of the teaching quality amateurs are in just a handful of places (as are most of the top notch pros). Outside of those places, your average pros control access to studio space, and if they don't want amateurs (or lower priced pros) working for them, they don't have to hire them.

Competing amateurs just wouldnt get very far without the support of the professionals. If they are teaching, then either the leading local pros endorse that, or they are taking their lessons out of town, and teaching in the apparently underserved community where they live - as probably the only clued in local resources available!

Contrast that with non-competing outside-the-sytem teachers - that may be what run of the mill plugged-in teachers really fear, but the competition elgibility rules never had any relevance to them anyway, and a lot of them probably would call themselves professionals.

What's also being missed is that if it becomes above-the-board legal for amateurs to teach, their rates will probably go up, and the cost differently will no longer be so much in their favor.

contracheck

06-03-2007, 01:18 PM

Not really. Most of the teaching quality amateurs are in just a handful of places (as are most of the top notch pros). Outside of those places, your average pros control access to studio space, and if they don't want amateurs (or lower priced pros) working for them, they don't have to hire them.
In most of the studios I have been to there are Am teachers by the decision of the owner and not the pros. As a matter of published policy, these studios charge the same teaching fee whether the teach is Pro or Am. Do we have any Tax expert here? Can the Ams who take lessons from pros deduct the lessons fees they pay from income tax? I always wanted to deduct the lesson fees I pay to coaches and all the expenses for Pro-Am competitions, but I am not sure if I am allowed to. Just think about it. $2,500 per Pro-Am competition and 10 comp/yr alone is $25,000 deduction, plus all of the lessons, clothings, shoes, music, etc., as expense to produce income. Please someone tell me I can deduct them. I do not teach, but I can always inprove Joe's dancing ability @ $40/hr and tell the IRS that I am an Am but I have teaching income. By the way, Do Ams have to pay tax on thier teaching incomes?

mamboqueen

06-03-2007, 01:35 PM

In most of the studios I have been to there are Am teachers by the decision of the owner and not the pros. As a matter of published policy, these studios charge the same teaching fee whether the teach is Pro or Am. Do we have any Tax expert here? Can the Ams who take lessons from pros deduct the lessons fees they pay from income tax? I always wanted to deduct the lesson fees I pay to coaches and all the expenses for Pro-Am competitions, but I am not sure if I am allowed to. Just think about it. $2,500 per Pro-Am competition and 10 comp/yr alone is $25,000 deduction, plus all of the lessons, clothings, shoes, music, etc. Please someone tell me I can deduct them. I do not teach. By the way, Do Ams have to pay tax on thier teaching incomes?

Go ahead and deduct them. You'll look quite handsome in a striped tailsuit ;)

Throwaway Overshare

06-03-2007, 01:40 PM

In most of the studios I have been to there are Am teachers by the decision of the owner and not the pros.

Which goes back to the people who are complaining being powerless. If they had power on the business side, they'd be the owners and not permit people they don't want to teach in their studios. If they had power on the dancing side, they'd be the teachers of the potential amateur teachers, and could refuse to coach those who do things they dissaprove of.

As a matter of published policy, these studios charge the same teaching fee whether the teach is Pro or Am.

Sure, but they probably aren't paying the teachers the same. If the amateur teachers were more legitimate, the market would become more open, and better reflect what each teacher does (or in some of these cases does not) have to offer in comparison to the others.

Do we have any Tax expert here? Can the Ams who take lessons from pros deduct the lessons fees they pay from income tax?

The IRS probably does not care about pro. vs. amateur labels, but what they would care about would the be reasonable expectation of turning a proft in the long run - you can't deduct the expense of hobbies. Also, training expenses are their own category.

I always wanted to deduct the lesson fees I pay to coaches and all the expenses for Pro-Am competitions

No way, unless you'd like to spend 5-10 years practicing rumba walks on a concrete floor.

By the way, Do Ams have to pay tax on thier teaching incomes?

Yes. The more legitimate the circumstances in which they teach, the greater the chance that they might actually do so.

White Chacha

06-03-2007, 01:43 PM

Having never even played a tax attorney on TV, I'd hazard a guess that you owe taxes on *any* income you receive.

I always loved the MA state tax forms. On the first page they indicate you must declare income from any legal and illegal sources. I wonder how many stupid criminals they catch that way ;-)

contracheck

06-03-2007, 02:05 PM

Go ahead and deduct them. You'll look quite handsome in a striped tailsuit ;)
Hi, MQ, I was actually thinking about you since you are better than most lawyers. I think that my scheme is air tight. If I have to pay tax on the money I earn from teaching Joe, I should be entitled to deduct all the expenses I spent to hone my skill. Apart from my situation, which was meant to be a sarcastic, if Ams are legitemately allowed to make money by teaching, they should be allowed to deduct the expenses. Don't you agree?

Throwaway Overshare

06-03-2007, 02:19 PM

if Ams are legitemately allowed to make money by teaching, they should be allowed to deduct the expenses. Don't you agree?

To the degree that a "professional" acting in the same manner would be, they most likely already are. The issues are convincing the IRS that your activity is being conducted as a business and not simply a hobby, and following the special rules applicable to job training expenses. Both of which concerns apply to pros too.

FeetwithaBeat

06-03-2007, 04:33 PM

Given that the elite status was a USABDA one (vs. the NDCA's "World Class Competitor" status) being "in the loop" doesn't seem to mean being clear about the issues. ;)

So sorry, I stand corrected, you are absolutely correct, the terminology used by the person was "World Class Competitor" as opposed to Elite, my mistake.

People will migrate to the teacher with whom they feel most comfortable be it amateur, professional, purple, green what ever they call themselves. Should the student want to do "Pro/Am" with their teacher then the teacher will have to make a choice, like Laura has stated earlier.

Until such time, let people take lessons with whomever they want. I also think that the same should hold true of those who seek medical, legal, psychological, accounting services and other "professional services" as well. Why limit those who believe in the practice of medicine, law etc just because they aren't degreed or registered with or governed by any official body. If someone wants legal advice from another person and wants legal representation by that person, let them. I believe the phrase "Let the buyer beware" is appropriate to all situations -- and this stands true for the untrained, ill-equipped "professional" dance teacher too.

saludas

06-03-2007, 04:44 PM

Until such time, let people take lessons with whomever they want. I also think that the same should hold true of those who seek medical, legal, psychological, accounting services and other "professional services" as well. Why limit those who believe in the practice of medicine, law etc just because they aren't degreed or registered with or governed by any official body. If someone wants legal advice from another person and wants legal representation by that person, let them. I believe the phrase "Let the buyer beware" is appropriate to all situations -- and this stands true for the untrained, ill-equipped "professional" dance teacher too.

Well, as we know, the NDCA has zero rules to determine or license or rate any professional teacher, so you are so right - the 6 week wonder is as much of a teacher as the amatuer finalist or pro, as far as they are concerned.

wooh

06-03-2007, 06:24 PM

We've down a couple of performances for non-profit groups, and I'm always telling my husband that it seems we should be able to deduct the cost of lessons preparing for those on our taxes.:D

Joe

06-04-2007, 06:24 AM

Sure, but they probably aren't paying the teachers the same. If the amateur teachers were more legitimate, the market would become more open, and better reflect what each teacher does (or in some of these cases does not) have to offer in comparison to the others.
You seem to be laboring under the conception that these amateur teachers are hired by a studio. I suspect the majority of them are more or less independent.

Throwaway Overshare

06-04-2007, 07:35 PM

You seem to be laboring under the conception that these amateur teachers are hired by a studio. I suspect the majority of them are more or less independent.

My intial assumption was that most would be independent, but I was replying to contracheck's comment about a studio which charges the same for pro and amateur teachers.

But as I think about it more, I think a lot of the amateurs actually are paid by studios and not directly by students. Especially in the lower ranks. The higher level ones are more likely to be independent, just as with the pros. Also those few permitted by the NDCA could not work independently.

contracheck

06-04-2007, 09:12 PM

Go ahead and deduct them. You'll look quite handsome in a striped tailsuit ;)

It may not be a bad idea if there is a possibilityof dancing with Paris Hilton.

contracheck

06-04-2007, 09:23 PM

My intial assumption was that most would be independent, but I was replying to contracheck's comment about a studio which charges the same for pro and amateur teachers.

But as I think about it more, I think a lot of the amateurs actually are paid by studios and not directly by students. Especially in the lower ranks. The higher level ones are more likely to be independent, just as with the pros. Also those few permitted by the NDCA could not work independently.
At least until now, it has been my observation that those studios that use Ams as instructors also use them as helping hands, e,g., perform shouwcases for free, serve foods, etc. In my opinion, these studios consder themselves doing favour to these Am teachers for letting them teach even though the rules state otherwise.

pruthe

06-04-2007, 10:25 PM

The IRS probably does not care about pro. vs. amateur labels, but what they would care about would the be reasonable expectation of turning a proft in the long run - you can't deduct the expense of hobbies. Also, training expenses are their own category.

My TurboTax shows a place to enter hobby income and hobby expenses. It said the expenses could be no more than hobby income. At IRS web site, I found following statement: "hobby expenses are deductible only to the extent of hobby income". I think there are some special rules as to what is considered a hobby vs a business.

Throwaway Overshare

06-04-2007, 11:28 PM

lessons are probably not deductable regardless

Katarzyna

06-04-2007, 11:31 PM

Can I deduct all my dresses at cost :) regardless is I sell or not..

Joe

06-05-2007, 06:34 AM

It may not be a bad idea if there is a possibilityof dancing with Paris Hilton.
The horizontal mambo?

contracheck

06-05-2007, 07:22 AM

lessons are probably not deductable regardless
I believe that lesson fees and clothng costs for Ams are deductible. I'll deduct them in any case. First of all, there is always a high chance of not being audited. If the IRS audits my tax return, I'll argue as hard as I can why I deducted them. There is a high chance of defeating the auditordue to the ambiguity of the tax law. Even if I lose, the IRS can't throw me into a prison because my deduction is not caused by a malicious deceit to fraud the government but was caused by an honest difference in interpretation of tax law.

tanya_the_dancer

06-05-2007, 11:13 AM

Throwaway Overshare

06-05-2007, 11:28 AM

Maybe, but miscellaneous deductions which educational expenses appear to be are limited to a maximum of 2% of your overall income.

pruthe

06-05-2007, 11:51 AM

So, this is interesting. If I started teaching, say, a dance group class at my gym and made, say, $200 per month, I would make $2400 per year. I spend way more on my lessons per year. So I could also deduct $2400 out of the amount I spent on the lessons and then this would end up being a zero sum.

I thinking it would be good to ask for advice from someone knowledgeable about this subject (certainly not me). If you are making money teaching part time, I would think it could be considered a profession and you must report income. In that case, you could probably deduct lesson/costume cost. I think there's a place in my TurboTax for that. I guess you could also consider teaching a hobby and you receive some income related to that along with some expenses. In this case, your expenses could not exceed income. You would need to read the rules for hobby vs profession before making this decision.

I really don't think its a good idea to deduct items if not sure its allowed. I think the IRS scans returns looking for red flags. If red flag found, they may be paying you a call. In this case, you better be ready to explain your reasoning, and if not accepted, possibly pay a penalty.

Good luck with your taxes next year! :)

evanluck

06-05-2007, 12:10 PM

I think it may help to guide people's thinking by separating the term amateur from your tax status.

If you think of the word amateur in a tax way, then you are definitely a hobbiest.

However it seems that the functional definition of an amateur according to the USA Dance rules is someone who chooses to compete in the amateur division.

Someone could very well be intending to start a business teaching dance and choosing to compete as an amateur because it allows them to get competition experience and exposure as they prepare to someday compete against professionals. Although I am not a tax professional and am not giving tax advice, it would seem that in this context reasonable deductions (coaching and costuming) would apply.

It would be interesting to see if the IRS audited a dancesport competitor who made a living teaching dance and forced them to justify how competing was a sound investment for their teaching business. Until the audience for dancesport and prize money grows it would seem that professional and amateurs alike could be accused of being hobbiests when it comes to competing.

FeetwithaBeat

06-05-2007, 01:08 PM

COOL -- lots of good tax advice without having to pay the exorbitant fees charged by accountants, CPAs and tax attorneys.....why go to a professional?

tanya_the_dancer

06-05-2007, 01:42 PM

I thinking it would be good to ask for advice from someone knowledgeable about this subject (certainly not me). If you are making money teaching part time, I would think it could be considered a profession and you must report income. In that case, you could probably deduct lesson/costume cost. I think there's a place in my TurboTax for that. I guess you could also consider teaching a hobby and you receive some income related to that along with some expenses. In this case, your expenses could not exceed income. You would need to read the rules for hobby vs profession before making this decision.

I really don't think its a good idea to deduct items if not sure its allowed. I think the IRS scans returns looking for red flags. If red flag found, they may be paying you a call. In this case, you better be ready to explain your reasoning, and if not accepted, possibly pay a penalty.

Good luck with your taxes next year! :)

But seriously, if someone holds a part-time job in addition to his regular job, are his expenses related to the part-time job also tax-deductible to some extent? I like contracheck's idea about that as it relates to dancing.

WorksForShoes

06-05-2007, 04:16 PM

I'm not a tax accountant/attorney/expert. However, I am a sole proprietor of my business.

If the person teaching dance is a sole proprietor, what I think people are thinking here when they say "independent" and not employed by a studio, then a wide range of supplies and services are able to be expensed or in some cases depreciated as a cost of doing business. This might include, for example, mileage for traveling to teach, for example. I suspect you could expense dance shoes, because you need them to teach. I have no idea if you could expense costumes on the theory that you have to compete in order to attract students.

The danger, however, is that there is a limit to the number of years that you can claim a loss before your business becomes by definition a hobby. So, if you make $2400 teaching dance but spend $6000 every year on lessons and try to expense them all, at a certain point your business becomes defined as a hobby.

It would be a very good idea to pay for an hour or two of an accountant's time sometime in the off season and construct a plan about which of your part time business expenses can be deducted and which cannot. Personally, I try to error on the conservative side, figuring it is better to spend a few bucks extra in tax rather than waste time in lengthy audits that could better be spent dancing.

contracheck

06-05-2007, 04:19 PM

Katarzyna

06-05-2007, 04:20 PM

pruthe

06-05-2007, 04:30 PM

But seriously, if someone holds a part-time job in addition to his regular job, are his expenses related to the part-time job also tax-deductible to some extent? I like contracheck's idea about that as it relates to dancing.

I would think having another job (eg. part-time) with qualifying expenses could be deducted, but I'm not a tax advisor. It wasn't clear to me that contracheck was thinking of deducting expenses associated with a job. I wouldn't think this would be allowed if expenses were not associated with job of some sort.

Larinda McRaven

06-05-2007, 04:42 PM

I think it may help to guide people's thinking by separating the term amateur from your tax status. Interesting and important distinction. I would be curious to hear from someone who qualifies themselves as an amateur AND tries to take a deduction and claim it as an expense.

It would be interesting to see if the IRS audited a dancesport competitor who made a living teaching dance and forced them to justify how competing was a sound investment for their teaching business. Until the audience for dancesport and prize money grows it would seem that professional and amateurs alike could be accused of being hobbiests when it comes to competing.

Because the "opportunity" to bring home a paycheck is there it is a valid buisness expense. Just as advertising in the newspaper may not yield additional students (income) doesn't invalidate it as a business expense. I go to compete as a pro with the opportunity and intent for income.

contracheck

06-05-2007, 05:24 PM

I think if you show income from things like shows you should be able to define costumes as business expenses. teaching is not the only way to make money from ballroom etc.. I think.. havent' done that in my taxes.. wow my refund would have been SO NICE last year if I deducted dresses..

If you practice dance at home, deduct a part of rent or mortgage payment. This is a legitimate home office deduction.

contracheck

06-05-2007, 05:32 PM

I think if you show income from things like shows you should be able to define costumes as business expenses. teaching is not the only way to make money from ballroom etc.. I think.. havent' done that in my taxes.. wow my refund would have been SO NICE last year if I deducted dresses..

The costs for Costumes are - just like professionals uniforms are - dfinitley a part of busines expenses. You can't compete in street clothes.

contracheck

06-05-2007, 05:43 PM

I really don't think its a good idea to deduct items if not sure its allowed. I think the IRS scans returns looking for red flags. If red flag found, they may be paying you a call. In this case, you better be ready to explain your reasoning, and if not accepted, possibly pay a penalty.

Red flags are usually raised when you made errors. If you use a tax software and if it says that there is no error or otherwise red flagable features, the IRS probably don't call you. If the IRS calls you, you put up a heroic fight and you lose, and if it charges a penalty, pay the penalty. The penalty is not going to be large. This is a risk that is well worth taking. Everytime you have a chance to fight the IRS, you grow big.

pruthe

06-05-2007, 08:33 PM

Red flags are usually raised when you made errors. If you use a tax software and if it says that there is no error or otherwise red flagable features, the IRS probably don't call you. If the IRS calls you, you put up a heroic fight and you lose, and if it charges a penalty, pay the penalty. The penalty is not going to be large. This is a risk that is well worth taking. Everytime you have a chance to fight the IRS, you grow big.

Red flags are not necessarily errors IMHO. They could be raised for values that are outside of expected norms according to IRS red flag threshold tables. A consumer tax program may not list a high value for deductions as an error. But when your submitted return is scanned against predefined thresholds, it may raise red flag for IRS.

I do not want to imply you're wrong in what you say. You could be entirely correct in your assumptions. Its just that I have a tendency to be careful in what I submit to IRS. I don't assume any penalty would be small and they couldn't make big trouble for me if I tried to get away with something.

contracheck

06-05-2007, 09:18 PM

Red flags are not necessarily errors IMHO. They could be raised for values that are outside of expected norms according to IRS red flag threshold tables. A consumer tax program may not list a high value for deductions as an error. But when your submitted return is scanned against predefined thresholds, it may raise red flag for IRS.

I do not want to imply you're wrong in what you say. You could be entirely correct in your assumptions. Its just that I have a tendency to be careful in what I submit to IRS. I don't assume any penalty would be small and they couldn't make big trouble for me if I tried to get away with something.
Timid, cautious people never make history. Bold people who like to take risk climb the highest mountain peak, vebture to the deepest sea bottom, reach the North Pole, develop vaccine, etc.

White Chacha

06-05-2007, 10:12 PM

... In this way, I have nothing to lose but have a chance of winning everything.

You'll lose the penalty the IRS charges you. Home office deductions are definitely a red flag. You'd have to prove a dedicated space in which you do nothing other than practice for your dance instruction...

But I'm not a tax attorney either.

Throwaway Overshare

06-21-2007, 12:11 AM

Any developments at the recent NDCA meeting?

JohnLL

06-21-2007, 01:05 PM

So I'm just reading into this thread for the first time and it seems to me that in a situation where an amateur had made the decision to start teaching for a studio on a part-time basis to make some extra cash but never competed pro-am or pro or there would be two separate scenarios to look at in terms of "going back" and competing as an amateur again...
As I understand it, under USA Dance rules currently in force if I never competed as a pro then basically I can still compete as an amateur under USA Dance rules.
Under NDCA rules there has not yet been any such change and even though I only teach part-time and have never competed as a pro I am still a pro and cannot be considered an amateur for purposes of competing in an NDCA comp.
I'm just trying to clarify all of this for my own benefit (obviously) for obvious (and not so obvious) reasons so I'd appreciate any feedback/comments from people on here since I have seen several people who seem very knowledgable post already. I'd be happy to PM specifics to somebody if needed but I'm trying to keep it general on here.

JohnLL

06-21-2007, 03:25 PM

Hi all, just finished reading the rest of this thread (18 pages of very interesting reading I must say) and have pretty much answered my own questions I think. Feel free to comment in anyways if you would like though. :-)

Katarzyna

07-06-2007, 01:14 PM

From last NDCA MEETING
"MATERIAL GAIN RULES

There were a series of rule changes proposed that would have changed the NDCA's definition of an amateur to one that would match that of USA Dance. Specifically they would have removed the restrictions associated with material gain.
A number of represented member bodies spoke adamantly against this proposal. The general sentiment was that professional dance instructors believe that opening-the-doors to amateurs teaching would be detrimental to their business.
As such the current rule of the NDCA is that only the top six couples, nationally, can teach for material gain. This being the case, all amateur athletes competing at NDCA events should be aware that they may be sanctioned if caught teaching.
Interestingly enough a case about a Pro/Am couple was presented. Many of the members at the table felt having the Amateur partner of a Pro/Am team teaching was "worse" than having an Am/Am team teaching. However, since the NDCA does not register the Amateur partner of a Pro/Am team, there is no governing or sanction action that can be taken. Clearly, to me this is a case of an unfair practice. Yes, Pro/Am Amateurs can teach without action and you cannot. I spoke strongly to lobby the NDCA members to embrace the new wave of amateurs now teaching. Some listened and the result was to table the vote and develop a committee to make recommendations on this topic for a future meeting (Jan-08).</IMG>
On a side note I want to express just how heated the discussion was. President Esther Freeman and I were the brunt of many "non-professional" comments. The representative from the North American DanceSport Teachers Association (NADTA) even compared taking lessons from an amateur teacher with taking your car to a shoddy, un-licensed mechanic.
This triggered quite a good conversation over professional teacher certification. As you know - there is no requirement of a license or certification to being a dance teacher. Of course the NDCA is not a governing body of dance teachers; they leave that to the member organizations.
Hopefully we will see a day when their rules, definitions are in lock-step with those of USA Dance to make it easier for all of you.
I would like to recognize NDCA First Vice-President, Judi Hatton, for her courage and foresight for bringing this motion to the group and thank those that spoke in favor of the motion."

latingal

07-06-2007, 01:31 PM

Kat thank you for the update on this subject....we do appreciate the report and information!

wyllo

07-06-2007, 01:37 PM

This unfortunately holds amateur couples to a much higher standard than the professionals (since any professional is allowed to teach). It would have been nice if they could have met USA Dance halfway -- maybe allow all champ-level dancers to teach or add the semi-finalists.

Am I reading it correctly that the am of a pro-am partnership currently is not restricted from teaching?

NielsenE

07-06-2007, 01:41 PM

That's the implication, only in so far as the am half of a pro am couple is not separately registered under any organization if they don't also do amateur events. I haven't seen the registration forms for a lot of open competitions in the pro-am world, they might work a "no-material gain" clause into their registration packets and studios could possible work it into their stock student enrollments, but its not "legislated" by the NDCA directly is the argument being made

Katarzyna

07-06-2007, 01:41 PM

Just got this email from NDCA.. so I wonder is it top 6 from last year only? or 2 years?

I am not surprised with this at all although there has been a lot of push to change those rules. I would have been surprised if the professional organization would not protect its professional members...

Chris Stratton

07-06-2007, 01:46 PM

Just got this email from NDCA

Actually you just got it from USA Dance. Which is a good sign - nice to see the organization reporting to members what it is doing with regard to the NDCA, especially as the NDCA hasn't yet updated its website.

wyllo

07-06-2007, 01:46 PM

That's the implication, only in so far as the am half of a pro am couple is not separately registered under any organization if they don't also do amateur events.

Oh, I didn't know that. I guess I just assumed you had to be a member of NDCA to compete pro-am. Thanks! :)

Kitty

07-06-2007, 01:47 PM

this is just ridiculous. especially the comparison to a bad mechanic. Come on, people, please don't try to use words to twist things around!
the truth is a champ level competitor is very qualified to teach comparing to a "no previous experience neccessary" pro or even some certified professionals. you can argue all you want that amateurs shouldn't teach, but please don't twist things..

NielsenE

07-06-2007, 01:48 PM

but in "theory" its not the professional organization... its the organization of all ballroom dance organizations.... but in practice due to there being one organization for amateurs, and about 10 for professionals its not surprising which way the votes go...

Perhaps USA Dance should fragment itself into lots of little semi-overlapping entities and try to get each group to get a vote (like that would happen)

Given that the pros have, for instance:
PDF, NADTA, USISTD, DVIDA, FADS, AMDS
all of which are voting members I believe, so amateurs s*should* (tongue firmly in cheek) have
the ADF (Amateur Dance Federation), NADSA (North American DanceSport Student Association), USISSD, MIT, Harvard, etc all as voting members :)

Katarzyna

07-06-2007, 01:51 PM

but in "theory" its not the professional organization... its the organization of all ballroom dance organizations....
yes in theory!

samina

07-06-2007, 02:14 PM

<<On a side note I want to express just how heated the discussion was. President Esther Freeman and I were the brunt of many "non-professional" comments.>>

who is this speaking...?

ACtenDance

07-06-2007, 02:19 PM

<<On a side note I want to express just how heated the discussion was. President Esther Freeman and I were the brunt of many "non-professional" comments.>>

who is this speaking...?

Ken Richards, VP of DanceSport for USA Dance

Laura

07-06-2007, 02:20 PM

Am I reading it correctly that the am of a pro-am partnership currently is not restricted from teaching?
I just checked the NDCA rule book and it contains absolutely no comments on the eligibility of Pro/Am Student Dancers (as they are called in the book).

Laura

07-06-2007, 02:22 PM

I haven't seen the registration forms for a lot of open competitions in the pro-am world, they might work a "no-material gain" clause into their registration packets
I've never seen any that do.

reb

07-06-2007, 02:46 PM

Likely obvious to many, particularly us Amateurs - but for those readers who are not on the USA Dance mailing list . . . the Material Gain Rules post above is a report from one of the USA Dance reps (Ken Richards, VP DanceSport USA Dance) who was in that NDCA meeting - not an NDCA report.

samina

07-06-2007, 02:55 PM

thanks, reb.

evanluck

07-06-2007, 06:17 PM

Is the complete NDCA rulebook online somwhere?

reb

07-06-2007, 06:25 PM

The NDCA website is here:

http://www.ndca.org/index.cfm?cfid=8635608&cftoken=47026713

It is fairly complete with:

Directory
Events
Information (that's where you'll find the rule book)
etc.How did you like rounds on Tuesday?

evanluck

07-06-2007, 06:59 PM

How did you like rounds on Tuesday?

Enjoyed the rounds very much. We think that that type of preparation is invaluable, so are trying to get down there as much as possible.

It was great seeing you and Borbola dance and sharing the floor with you guys!

DanceMentor

07-06-2007, 10:47 PM

this is just ridiculous. especially the comparison to a bad mechanic. Come on, people, please don't try to use words to twist things around!

I know some pretty bad mechanics and dance teachers that get paid to do it. If I were one of the not-so-good dance teachers who doesn't keep up their training, I would especially be concerned.

At least an amateur is usually someone that is trying to improve their dancing.

We also have to bear in mind there are often teachers getting paid who have been on the floor less than a year. How would you like to have one of them work on your car?

Throwaway Overshare

07-06-2007, 10:54 PM

If it was seriously a concern about uncertified teachers, the thing to do would be for NDCA to implement something comparable to the USABDA certified amateur program - pass ISTD associate exam as a student member, and you're in the clear. As a plus, this would mean that a lot of future pro would be getting certification early in their careers, instead of only after retiring from competition.

Someone will probably point out that very few ever participated in the program. But there's a good reason for that - it didn't grant authorization to participate in the numerous NDCA competitions, in fact, getting listed as certified would have been calling a lot of attention to yourself as someone probably violating NDCA rules. But if it's an NDCA program, then all those pressures go in the other direction. Actually - the fastest way to kick off the program would be to round up a half dozen of the most obvious violators and tell them that they are banned from NDCA competitions for either one year for violating the current rules, or until they pass the exam.

But I suspect the qualifications issue was merely something to hide behind.

DanceMentor

07-07-2007, 12:01 PM

Preamble from Judi Hatton that was passed out to the NDCA delegates on the last meeting.
(Note: this is just part of a presentation that was given on the subject)

FIRST VICE PRESIDENT – Rule change (The pertinent part)

Motivation: This is a pragmatic assessment of what is actually happening in today’s dance world; circumstances are now such that the line between “amateur” and “professional” has become so fine as to be almost erased, not only throughout the USA but throughout the world. Whether we like it or not, these are circumstances that we cannot change no matter how we legislate. To retain these rules as written will mean that we have rules that have become impossible to implement, thereby creating an enormous administrative headache, and also creating something of a “tool” that can be used discriminately against some dancers and not others.

We have been adopting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in regard to the situation of amateur dancers teaching: we know that it is happening but unless we receive a specific and verifiable complaint, nothing is done about it. This recently resulted in the removal of amateur status from a top level US Championship winning pro-am student on a complaint against her by one of her competition. Was this lady teaching? Yes, she was teaching beginners for a very small amount, mainly in her basement, to help her get the money to travel to compete. Was she ‘qualified’? By an association, no; but I would speculate that, due to her level of achievement in several styles, she was probably as capable of teaching beginners as many so-called ‘professional’ teachers, if not more so, and, since NDCA does not require that registered ‘professionals’ be qualified by examination, it would be inappropriate in the very least to expect it of anyone else. However, despite the fact that every even only 'reasonably placed’ amateur couple is teaching, we have a rule in place that prohibits teaching, so this lady is now no longer able to follow her dream, while supporting several NDCA registered professionals by taking lessons, and our competition industry. It would seem to me that this is a perfect example of shooting oneself in the foot!

In addition, it can only be beneficial for dancers and organizers if our Rule Book were to more closely reflect that of USA Dance in this area. Therefore, I suggest the following Rule changes which would remove the association of “amateur” with “money” or “teaching.” In short, to remove unenforceable rules from the Rule Book.

DanceMentor

07-07-2007, 02:23 PM

in fact, getting listed as certified would have been calling a lot of attention to yourself as someone probably violating NDCA rules.

The NDCA Rule Book does allow for amateur dancers to become certified and certification, such as an ISTD Associate degree, (not considered a "full degree" by the Society) does not mean that the person certified is automatically considered to be a professional by the NDCA, although in the somewhat distant past it would have. The President of the ISTD in the USA and, as it was then, USABDA in the person of Gary Stroik, were instrumental in setting up the amateur certification program. Initially this came out of the need for amateurs to have "certified amateur judges" during the early stages of the quest for Olympic recognition. Subsequently, a great many amateur dancers have become certified through the program.

Also wanted to bring in this from the last page, so it doesn't get lost:

Preamble from Judi Hatton that was passed out to the NDCA delegates on the last meeting.
(Note: this is just part of a presentation that was given on the subject)

FIRST VICE PRESIDENT – Rule change (The pertinent part)

Motivation: This is a pragmatic assessment of what is actually happening in today’s dance world; circumstances are now such that the line between “amateur” and “professional” has become so fine as to be almost erased, not only throughout the USA but throughout the world. Whether we like it or not, these are circumstances that we cannot change no matter how we legislate. To retain these rules as written will mean that we have rules that have become impossible to implement, thereby creating an enormous administrative headache, and also creating something of a “tool” that can be used discriminately against some dancers and not others.

We have been adopting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in regard to the situation of amateur dancers teaching: we know that it is happening but unless we receive a specific and verifiable complaint, nothing is done about it. This recently resulted in the removal of amateur status from a top level US Championship winning pro-am student on a complaint against her by one of her competition. Was this lady teaching? Yes, she was teaching beginners for a very small amount, mainly in her basement, to help her get the money to travel to compete. Was she ‘qualified’? By an association, no; but I would speculate that, due to her level of achievement in several styles, she was probably as capable of teaching beginners as many so-called ‘professional’ teachers, if not more so, and, since NDCA does not require that registered ‘professionals’ be qualified by examination, it would be inappropriate in the very least to expect it of anyone else. However, despite the fact that every even only 'reasonably placed’ amateur couple is teaching, we have a rule in place that prohibits teaching, so this lady is now no longer able to follow her dream, while supporting several NDCA registered professionals by taking lessons, and our competition industry. It would seem to me that this is a perfect example of shooting oneself in the foot!

In addition, it can only be beneficial for dancers and organizers if our Rule Book were to more closely reflect that of USA Dance in this area. Therefore, I suggest the following Rule changes which would remove the association of “amateur” with “money” or “teaching.” In short, to remove unenforceable rules from the Rule Book.

Laura

07-07-2007, 02:31 PM

Was Gary Stroik ever president of USABDA/USA Dance? I thought that Archie Hazelwood was the president for like a gazillion years. Gary had been VP of DanceSport for a while, though.

DanceMentor

07-07-2007, 02:37 PM

No, I don't believe so. He served an Athlete Representative for the Olympics.

reb

07-07-2007, 02:41 PM

Judi Hatton presents a very lucid argument / statement. I'd hate to be in the position of representing another interest against her.

Throwaway Overshare

07-07-2007, 02:53 PM

The NDCA Rule Book does allow for amateur dancers to become certified and certification, such as an ISTD Associate degree, (not considered a "full degree" by the Society) does not mean that the person certified is automatically considered to be a professional by the NDCA

No if you merely take an ISTD student member exam. But being on a list of people who took the exam through a USABDA program designed in part to allow teaching, would call a lot of attention to you. At one point, it even listed if you'd chosen to judge or coach (you couldn't do both in any given year).

Subsequently, a great many amateur dancers have become certified through the program.

There are a mere five names on the website. More importantly, none of the active finalist/semifinalist class athletes who should have taken part in the program to legitimize their teaching ever did. It was a flop for that purpose because it didn't grant any protection from NDCA rules. If the NDCA did it, then it would, and they could push it to success.

But the issue is not really one of teacher certification. The NDCA leadership recognizes that and is pushing for a change. But NDCA members who employ a lot of underqualified teachers try to pretend otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with having a rule against teaching, however there's unnaceptable dishonesty in having such a rule and then having your competitions entirely dominated by people who are openly in violation of it.

DanceMentor

07-07-2007, 02:56 PM

Judi Hatton presents a very lucid argument / statement. I'd hate to be in the position of representing another interest against her.

If more people can profit in the dance business, one would expect the dance business will grow. If more people are allowed to teach, it could increase the number of teachers, and have some effects on the price of dance lessons. However, great dance teachers who work hard to increase their knowledge will always get paid more. Dance studios will be able to have more teachers. If you look in the back of Dancebeat, there are always studios desperate for a decent teacher. I've found many studios are limited in their growth because they don't have enough teachers. It is still up to the studio to have quality controls, and there is no reason to think studios would lower their standards in a way that decreases profits, no way.

DanceMentor

07-07-2007, 02:59 PM

But the issue is not really one of teacher certification. The NDCA leadership recognizes that and is pushing for a change. But NDCA members who employ a lot of underqualified teachers try to pretend otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with having a rule against teaching, however there's unnaceptable dishonesty in having such a rule and then having your competitions entirely dominated by people who are openly in violation of it.

I agree with you on this. More the purpose of the previous post was to shed some light on the history and precedent that was previously set, as it seems their is a little misinformation regarding some of these changes that brought us to where we are now. It is important to study these things too, because they have a bearing on how we can move forward.

Throwaway Overshare

07-07-2007, 02:59 PM

Question: There's little difference but naming between the IDSF type of competitiors and the professionals. However, we benefit from having two seperate categories of competitors, and a graduation from one to the other.

Would it be a sufficient functional division to say that professionals may enter pro/am events at NDCA competitions with their students, and amateurs may not? It's certainly easy to keep track of, as NDCA requires pro/am teachers to register... you can teach under the table, which made enforcing that hard, but it's non-trivial to make an under-the-table entry to a sanctioned competition.

Throwaway Overshare

07-07-2007, 03:04 PM

Would be very interesting to know which organizations are opposing the NDCA leadership on this.

madmaximus

07-07-2007, 06:19 PM

Curious...

Made me think about a theoretical situation.

If I were an 'AMATEUR DANCER' from a foreign country, and emigrated to the US, would I be classified as an Amateur, even if--in the past:

1. I received, while still in my parent country, endorsements, money, and sponsorships as an Amateur within the rules of my parent country's amateur org.
2. Been an active member of a dance studio, and teaching dancers therein,
3. Never declared myself to be a professional,
4. Judged at a few low level competitions in the past.

Would NDCA's rules/regs classify me as a professional dancer--even if I was considered an amateur in my parent country?

Now, due to the financial gain I received in teaching and sponsorships, I was able to avail of better coaching.
This in turn allows me to consistently beat other US Amateurs in US competitions, who did not have my advantages.

So, on the other side of this coin, if I were competing as a US Amateur Dancer in a US competition against such a foreign Amateur from a foreign country (who has those said advantages)--would I not be competing against a Professional (by NDCA definitions)?

m

tbrennen

07-08-2007, 04:22 PM

Was Gary Stroik ever president of USABDA/USA Dance? I thought that Archie Hazelwood was the president for like a gazillion years. Gary had been VP of DanceSport for a while, though.

Archie was president while Gary was VP of DanceSport. I believe Gary was DanceSport VP from about 1998 or 2000 through 2006. Archie did not really propose DanceSport solutions and policy. In the time I was on the DanceSport Council (DSC) and USABDA Executive Committee (1997-2006), Archie really just expressed dissatisfaction with something and asked the DSC to come up with something to deal with it. The USISTD certification program was proposed by someone (Gary?) and the DSC pushed it forward to the Governing Council who voted on the proposal and approved it.

The main problem with that program is that there was and is very little incentive to go through the certification process. While you are an active competitor, it will take a lot of time away from your competitive practice and focus (note that only one of the certified individuals is a current competitor and he is retired and had the time to do both competition and certification study). Second, up until a year or two ago, the NDCA automatically considered you to be a pro if you went through the USISTD certification exam. Why paint a target on your back if you don't have to. Lastly, as Judi Hatton pointed out, the rules were not really fully enforceable. USA Dance finally did the right thing and now the NDCA is trying to follow suit. (Once a person has stopped competing but continuing teaching, it doesn't really matter whether they are an amateur or pro and, in my opinion, should call themselves a pro.)

Someone asked who would oppose the proposed new NDCA rule. Well, things change slowly in large organizations and within groups of people who have pretty much had their way for a long time. As far as I know (which isn't too far since I am not inside the USA Dance administration anymore), some of these teaching organizations that make up the voting blocks within the NDCA do not want "amateurs" teaching for fear of losing business to them. I don't know but I would guess that most of this fear comes from the closed organizations that have their own closed competitions and teachers who are not necessarily of the, um, highest quality. On the other hand, I think that this proposal would never have made it to the table if the NDCA Executive Committee and people on it were not in favor of it. This is great!

As for the NDCA requiring certification of teachers, it will never happen. The NDCA was created by professionals to administer Pro-Am competitions in the US and it has done a pretty good job at that. However, there is no way the teaching organizations that actually make up the members of the NDCA will ever give up their individual control over their own registered teachers. These same organizations had a fit when it was proposed to register amateurs doing pro-am and NDCA certification of teachers is perceived to be much more interfering.

On the other hand, relations between USA Dance and the NDCA are better than any time in my experienc(e the last 17 years). I am really encouraged and greatly relieved. Maybe the two organizations, which both have very important roles to play, can finally work together to build a dance community that is much greater (and more functional) than it has been.
(yeah, the above reads like a political statement but I am really happy about this.)

reb

07-08-2007, 06:02 PM

Good to have you around here Turtle!

DanceMentor

07-10-2007, 03:12 PM

tbrennen, I really enjoyed reading your post, and your sentiments reenforced what I have been hearing from others. It is great to see relations between USA Dance and the NDCA improving. And I do agree that the main people concerned about the new rule are closed organizations that are not producing good teachers. It's time to step in up a notch! :)

I see this thread has been viewed 7,305 times. I think we can come to the conclusion that people are reading Dance Forums. At some point I think it might be interesting to conduct a poll here on Dance Forums and let people vote to voice their opinion.

FeetwithaBeat

07-11-2007, 10:46 AM

I have a question....how does the population feel about unqualified amateurs teaching? I am all for any qualified person teaching -- amateur, pro, somewhere in between -- if they have the experience, knowledge and ability to impart the knowledge, then by all means go forth and teach. But what about the person who has been watching some videos, been to some group classes, maybe even taken a private lesson or two and is a somewhat passable "social dancer" and decides to start teaching? You know the type, the ones that "assist the teacher" in group classes by ignoring what is being said and "helping the less knowledgable" by taking them aside and "teaching" them during a group class. I know that this is already going on in less populated areas where there are few pro teachers and in areas where these "amateur teachers" go into the market, charge 1/2 of what the pros do to get students. In some instances the pros end up with the students eventually, but (as has been my experience where I live) a good many of the people that begin with the "amateur teachers" get frustrated and quit dancing altogether.

If the person is qualified then heck yeah I would enjoy getting coaching by a top flight "amateur" that could help my dancing. But if I were a total newbie how would I know the difference? Besides I would think that those amatuers that are truly qualified to teach would probably want to teach what they know best -- coach competitive dancing or stay in their field of expertise -standard, latin etc. Would they really want to start someone with a basic box step or haul a newbie around the floor until they learned how to move on their own?

It seems to me that the changing of the rules will just encourage more "less qualified/experienced" dancers to begin to teach for gain. And in the long run is this really good for the dance world?

My solution -- have ANYONE who teaches for gain pass a qualification exam administered by either USA Dance and/or NDCA -- just a test to ensure that the candidate can TEACH -- not just know the steps. Knowledge in teaching privates and group classes. Enforcability? In some states dance studios must be registered with the State Attorney General and/or BBB -- in order to register ALL employees must have a current record of qualification on file and provide copies to said state agencies. For those state without such legislation, then USA Dance and/or NDCA should make this policy public knowledge and such qualified teachers should display their certificates. If there is no knowledge of such rules then well the student may or may not suffer, but at least something is being done about the situation.

Chris Stratton

07-11-2007, 11:07 AM

Most teachers who earn money for their work but probably shouldn't would categorize themselves as professionals, not amateurs.

Teachers who categorize themselves as amateurs tend to mean that they compete in that category, and as a result tend to have a useful knowledge and experience of the actual practice of dancing, even if it's not as accurate, organized, and presentable a knowledge as would ideally be desirable in a teacher.

DanceMentor

07-11-2007, 11:24 AM

tanya_the_dancer

07-11-2007, 11:28 AM

Working from a studio is not the only way to teach. BBB and such can control studios who have to have business license, but I don't think anything like this regulates independents. I was totally horrified the other day. I had to find out some information about local community rec center, and while I was browsing their site, I saw an announcement for a ballroom class FREE for public. So I then called rec center and after I found out what I needed, I also asked about that class - mainly I wanted to know who teaches it and if we should add it to our website which lists local dance resources. And it turned out that the person who does it is the disaster guy I complained about once on this boards (otherwise very nice and kind women run to the bathroom to make sure they do not dance with him). I almost told the rec center people to make sure they get more insurance or have a separate extra liability waiver for that class. And that guy does not compete, so I guess he doesn't have to worry about the rules.

Kitty

07-11-2007, 11:31 AM

dance234

07-11-2007, 11:52 AM

I feel exactly the same about unqualified amateurs as I do about unqualified professionals - that I wouldn't take from them and they in general stink. If there were really a groundswell of horror about unqualified people teaching, half the 'teachers' I see at pro-am comps would be hung by their tailsuits.

And yet, many of these so-called pros are successful by a variety of measures. How is a newbie to tell if these teachers are unqualified? They can't. So to ask that question just of the ostensible amateur teacher seems disingenuous.

WorksForShoes

07-11-2007, 01:56 PM

Zhena

07-11-2007, 02:14 PM

I think to have a "qualified" teacher, you almost need to have an examination process by a "member organization". The best I have seen that is widely used is DVIDA. I'm glad to see them growing. They are doing a great job.

Not being a competitor, I don't have an opinion about the NDCA rules. I do, however, agree with the view that the "pros" who want to keep "ams" from teaching are disingenuous unless they also support a formal system for evaluating the qualifications of teachers, themselves included.

I would like to see a movement towards providing real information to consumers. Possibly DVIDA is one option if the examination process includes teaching skills as well as dancing skills. If studios and independent professionals were to include standardized information about their qualifications in their advertisements and promotional materials, prospective students would have a better chance of realizing there are questions they should ask before making a commitment to a teacher. It wouldn't have to be mandatory (government-regulated) as long as enough teachers did it that students would see lack of information as a reason to be cautious. Without standardized information, students must rely on word-of-mouth or competition results (which newbies may not be able to decipher, and which say nothing whatsoever about teaching ability).

I think there is a place for informal amateur teachers, teachers-in-training, experienced competitors who want to share knowledge, and those who can actually teach dance (whether or not they are/were involved in competition). But a student should be able to tell what they are getting for their money.

Again, not being a competitor, I am completely baffled by the distinction between amateur, pro/am and pro competitions. If you want to compete, why does it matter whether the people you compete against are called pro or am? If you want to measure yourself against others, don't you want an accurate measure? And whether or not you want to compete, why should you care how well your teacher does in competitions? Shouldn't you be able to find out how well they are able to help you meet your goals?

standardgirl

07-11-2007, 02:20 PM

But that's the point. Some amateurs have enough expertise to teach beginners or perhaps help coach teams. That doesn't mean that they have enough expertise to go pro.

Agree, but, if all we care about is your argument, then there is really no need for the seperation btwn ameteur vs professional events......In that world, we can supposely do thing purely by ability (or proficiency point system similir to the one already in place for USA Dance am events). The fact that we have seperate events for amateurs and professionals means that there should be some sort of distinction between the two, right? Whether you earn money from dancing becomes a natural seperator as within lots of other sports.

I don't think it has much to do with ability. But when I work 40 hours a week fulltime and compete in amateur events or as the am part of pro-am competitions, I expect my competitors to also be "amateurs," which with current NDCA rules, excludes those that make money out from dancing. I would make no comment about the new USA Dance rule that allows ameteurs to teach, since yeah......this essentially defeat the purpose of the difference btwn pro and am. ;) I have always agree on letting the "top" amateur teach (like the cases Kitty suggested earlier and like the old USABDA system), but to just allow anyone and everyone to teach and still be amateur? I am not quite sure...and if this becomes universal, than what's the point of distinguish btwn pro and am events?

NielsenE

07-11-2007, 02:26 PM

Zhena

07-11-2007, 02:33 PM

Just wondering, does anyone know when the amateur/professional distinction changed from "wealthy scion of a semi-noble family"/"tradesman" to a "doesn't receive material gain for this particular activity"/"uses this activity to support themselves"?

Ie the historic difference was the absolute height of class-ism... it wasn't that you worked as a teacher of dance, it was that you had to work in the first place....

FWIW, here's what Wikipedia says about amateurs:

Alternatively, the lack of financial recompense can also be seen as a sign of commitment to an activity. For instance, until the 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s) most Olympic events required that the athletes be amateurs. Receiving payment to participate in an event disqualified an athlete from that event, as in the case of Jim Thorpe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Thorpe). This rule remains in place for boxing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing) and football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_%28soccer%29) events.

NielsenE

07-11-2007, 02:38 PM

Laura

07-11-2007, 02:58 PM

But that's still the "modern" definition of "amateur"... Just interested in when the "wealthy" decided it was ok to mix with the "tradesman", but not ok to mix with the subset of "tradesmen" who taught the activity
Do you even know if it's "okay" today? Like, does Paris Hilton hang out with the person who pulls weeds in her garden? Or, picking someone considered much more ladylike in traditional wealthy society, does Barbara Bush hang out with the person who changes the oil in her car?

A better answer to your question might have to do with the growth of the middle class after World War II. So many people in the middle provided ground for the kind of class-blind mixing you are talking about, where tradespeople and consumers of the their products mingle socially.

DanceMentor

07-11-2007, 03:03 PM

What about the "amateur" that is flying to a new destination each weak, taking a dozen private lessons per week, buying a new competition outfit monthly, etc. ?

Now compare that person to someone who can barely afford to take one private lesson per week, and going to a competition or buying a costume involves spending all their savings, and just wants to do a little teaching to help them afford a little more.

It just doesn't make sense.

Chris Stratton

07-11-2007, 03:03 PM

Um, you can write a rule restricting activity specific income, but you can't exactly write a rule that says all your income must be from inherited investments...

NielsenE

07-11-2007, 03:05 PM

Good point... (responding primarily to Laura's post)

Do you think the modern amateur/professional distinction in sports/ballroom is predominately still a class issue?

Zhena

07-11-2007, 03:11 PM

Good point... (responding primarily to Laura's post)

Do you think the modern amateur/professional distinction in sports/ballroom is predominately still a class issue?

I haven't read all the pro-am discussions on this board in depth, but I have gotten the impression that it's not the amateurs who really fight for the rule, it's the professionals who don't want "unqualified" amateurs taking their income.

NielsenE

07-11-2007, 03:11 PM

A better answer to your question might have to do with the growth of the middle class after World War II. So many people in the middle provided ground for the kind of class-blind mixing you are talking about, where tradespeople and consumers of the their products mingle socially.

IANASEH (Socio-economic historian), but I would have thought that the "American Psyche" at the time of the rise of the middle-class would have pushed strongly for the elimination of any amateur v professional distinction in practically any field of endeavor. From what I recall of history (having not even been born yet), that was an era when "can-do", "you can be as good as anyone if you work hard" mentality still was wide-spread... versus "grab what you can", 'sue who you can", "use/make the rules for your personal advantage" that seems to permeate today's culture (not ballroom more than society at large)

Laura

07-11-2007, 03:13 PM

Do you think the modern amateur/professional distinction in sports/ballroom is predominately still a class issue?
I can't speak for other sports, but I don't think socio-economic class is the differentiator between amateurs and pros in competitive ballroom in the US. Based on personal observation, dancesport participants tend to be from the middle class. The truly poor don't have the discretionary income to take dance lessons at all (excepting programs like that in "Mad Hot Ballroom") and although there are some very wealthy people in dancesport, I'd hazard that it is actually a small number overall. What we see is a range from lower-middle-class to upper-middle-class, with a few individuals who live off of residual wealth mixed in (mostly in Pro/Am).

Note that this is just my opinion based on observation. I could be totally off here, as looks can be deceiving and who knows for sure what is really going on....

NielsenE

07-11-2007, 03:17 PM

Well some professional organization fight allowing amateur to teach -- we're hypothesizing (probably correctly) that its because they don't want the competition.

Likewise some amateurs don't want to compete against the pros in the first place (and this tends to include the quasi-pros as the teaching amateurs are called), whether its because of class-issues, or because of the perceived imbalance of a hobbyist competing against "full-time professional"

Of course the hobbyist versus full-time distinction (slightly more relevant in the Adult 2 thread then here, but still related) hinges on the assumption that their is an easy to draw line in terms of time/money outlay between the two "camps" which of course seems to be a flawed assumption.

FeetwithaBeat

07-11-2007, 03:17 PM

FeetwithaBeat, in the scenario you are describing, the unqualified teachers are probably "social dancers" and not competing amateurs. In this case NDCA or USA Dance decision regarind teaching amateurs does not apply anyway since they are only regulating competing amateurs.

Competing amateurs (especially the championship level amateurs that the rules mostly address) will tend to be very proficient teachers. While the teacher in your example couldn't care less about the NDCA policy.

I see your point Kitty, however in some instances (my location in particular) many of the "unqualified amateurs" who are teaching DO want to compete as amateurs. Even though they are nowhere near Pre-Champ or Championship level dancers -- they want to maintain their "amateur" status "just in case" AND teach for material gain. Some of whom have the audacity to solicit local pros for pro/am competition.

You may be surprised how many "non-competitors" are aware of the raging Amateur vs Pro battle.

Laura

07-11-2007, 03:18 PM

but I would have thought that the "American Psyche" at the time of the rise of the middle-class would have pushed strongly for the elimination of any amateur v professional distinction in practically any field of endeavor.
I see what you are saying but in my mind, at least since the 1980's, people in the middle class came to aspiring to being rich (or at least perceived as being that way), and so take on the upper-class attitudes in the hopes of eventually one day being in that higher socio-economic level.

From what I recall of history (having not even been born yet), that was an era when "can-do", "you can be as good as anyone if you work hard" mentality still was wide-spread... versus "grab what you can", 'sue who you can", "use/make the rules for your personal advantage" that seems to permeate today's culture (not ballroom more than society at large)
That was true, in some long-lost past, I'm putting the turning point somewhere in the late 70's -- which gave rise to the "greed is good" era of the 1980's where making money off the movement of money became the way to the top.

This could turn out to be a really fascinating discussion, but I wonder if it's an appropriate topic for Dance Forums?

NielsenE

07-11-2007, 03:21 PM

I can't speak for other sports, but I don't think socio-economic class is the differentiator between amateurs and pros in competitive ballroom in the US. Based on personal observation, dancesport participants tend to be from the middle class. The truly poor don't have the discretionary income to take dance lessons at all (excepting programs like that in "Mad Hot Ballroom") and although there are some very wealthy people in dancesport, I'd hazard that it is actually a small number overall. What we see is a range from lower-middle-class to upper-middle-class, with a few individuals who live off of residual wealth mixed in (mostly in Pro/Am).

Note that this is just my opinion based on observation. I could be totally off here, as looks can be deceiving and who knows for sure what is really going on....

That's my perception as well. But I am wondering if its a hold over from earlier days when it wasn't so mixed.

IE originally was it the amateurs begging/pleading for "protection" from the pros in competition, and now a system has grown up where the pros are seeking to maintain protection from the "amateurs" in teaching

FeetwithaBeat

07-11-2007, 03:25 PM

It would seem to me that the pro competitor may be wary about having to compete against a high level "amateur couple." I mean the pro has to teach for a living, this means hauling around all sorts of students beginners to advanced -- many times not being able to dance to potential on every lesson, falling into bad habits and not being able to practice with his/her pro partner and train as much as may be desired. While the Amateur competitor has another source of income. While practice time may be more limited, this couple ONLY dances with each other, they only TRAIN with each other, they can focus their dance time soley on their dancing and not be distracted by students or teaching or pro/am competition etc etc. Would seem to me that the Amateur competitor has the edge here.

Laura

07-11-2007, 03:25 PM

Likewise some amateurs don't want to compete against the pros in the first place (and this tends to include the quasi-pros as the teaching amateurs are called), whether its because of class-issues, or because of the perceived imbalance of a hobbyist competing against "full-time professional"
My personal opinion is that it is with the hobbyist vs. careerist differentiation. Why should I, who took up dancing a couple of evenings a week after work at the ripe old age of 33, have to go up against someone who trained as a professional ballet dancer in her youth, then danced on tour in the stage show for an A-list musician, and then decided to take up ballroom and teaches partner dancing part-time while competing as the "Am" half of a Pro/Am couple? I see myself as a hobbyist, and this other person as a careerist, and would prefer that there were some sort of dividing line.

Of course the hobbyist versus full-time distinction (slightly more relevant in the Adult 2 thread then here, but still related) hinges on the assumption that their is an easy to draw line in terms of time/money outlay between the two "camps" which of course seems to be a flawed assumption.

Unfortunately, there is no dividing line that is fair and enforceable, as far as anyone can tell (including Judi Hatton, based on what was published in the recent NDCA minutes). And so we are left with the current situation.

NielsenE

07-11-2007, 03:28 PM

This could turn out to be a really fascinating discussion, but I wonder if it's an appropriate topic for Dance Forums?

I'm unsure too... A large part of advocating any solution, in my mind, is to understand why the situation got to where it is. Ie " We used to do X because of A, B, and C. Notice now that A and B no longer apply and C has reversed itself. In the mean time X has caused the following side effects .... Some of which are considered beneficial and some of which aren't. Are the side effects on balance worth maintaining/adopting as reasons for maintaining X or should we seek a new mechanism for promoting the current benefits and removing the liabilities?"

Yet its a potentially sensitive topic and I've deleted about 4x what I've composed in the posts on these topics since I could find a way to phrase it in a way I'm comfortable posting.....

Laura

07-11-2007, 03:33 PM

Amateur and Pro distinctions aside (which I think could be solved by going to a 100% tracked 100% merit-based system, even though it would cause chaos for the first couple of years), I think an even bigger issue is the difference in attitudes between the hobbyists and careerists. Usually everyone gets along fine, but every so often you get some real snotty careerist-type who looks down on the hobbyists and decides that since they are not young enough, talented enough, pretty enough, etc etc. that they cannot be considered real dancers. There was a thread like that on Dance Forums fairly recently. Anyway, I would hate to see dancesport get to the point where only the careerists are welcome. That is my biggest worry with the "professionalization" of sports: that the bumbling lower-and-middle ground who will never "get anywhere" will get squeezed out, and so the activity ceases to be something that anyone can do for fun and instead becomes overly-selective on the lowest levels.

NielsenE

07-11-2007, 03:34 PM

My personal opinion is that it is with the hobbyist vs. careerist differentiation. Why should I, who took up dancing a couple of evenings a week after work at the ripe old age of 33, have to go up against someone who trained as a professional ballet dancer in her youth, then danced on tour in the stage show for an A-list musician, and then decided to take up ballroom and teaches partner dancing part-time while competing as the "Am" half of a Pro/Am couple? I see myself as a hobbyist, and this other person as a careerist, and would prefer that there were some sort of dividing line.

Unfortunately, there is no dividing line that is fair and enforceable, as far as anyone can tell (including Judi Hatton, based on what was published in the recent NDCA minutes). And so we are left with the current situation.

Agreed, but its not just the amateurs who get hurt by this -- what about the "6-week" wonders people talk about at the studios. They can get just as hooked as us amateurs and are similarly constrained by the rules -- they're now stuck in a place with only RS/Pro (and possibly other events at closed franchise sponsored events). And at the rates they often get paid, even with discounted rates for their own training, they're going to have to carry a full teaching load to make ends meet before working on their own dancing.....

I don't know if there's enough of this type of teacher out there but if there are and a solution is being proposed that helps them, then you might get some of the professional organizations on your side too...

LindyKeya

07-11-2007, 03:37 PM

While not easily enforceable, in the world of swing competitions, the dividing line between pro and amateur is based on a percentage of annual income earned from dancing. Thus the person who teaches a couple lessons a week to support their dancing habit is not a pro, while the person who makes the majority or their entire income from dance-related activities is a pro. There seem to be few problems with people categorizing themselves dishonestly, as the system at least makes sense, and seems fair.

And maybe someone with more experience teaching ballroom will chime in, but I've never felt my dancing negatively impacted by teaching beginners (mostly various swing dances, but also ballroom teams). In fact, it actually has helped, because it forces me to really focus on basics.

star_gazer

07-11-2007, 03:44 PM

NielsenE

07-11-2007, 03:46 PM

So it would seem like one solution:

a) eliminate am/pro distinction, purely merit based levels
b) maintain the current certification process (DVIDA/USISTD/etc) decoupled from the deprecated am/pro discintion
c) push for adoption of USA Dance's Mixed Proficiency version of Pro-Am as the replacement after the deprecation of am/pro labels.

Point c should serve to protect the monied interest of the people with a vested interest in pro-am
Point b should serve to at least allow discerning consumers to do some pre-investigation of the "credentials" of any given teacher, but of course should still be coupled with comparison "shopping"
Point a addresses the "like" against "like" competition goal to provide for a path of growth

Its probably not a complete plan of course, but I think any solution needs to address all three of those areas to have any real chance of gathering enough support

NielsenE

07-11-2007, 03:52 PM

How about something that can be easily enforced...If one calls himself a pro or does the pro in pro/am, he is a pro. If he calls himself an amateur and doesn't dance as a professional, he is an amateur.

Because its a rather meaningless distinction then. Its basically saying "We have two pools of people you can compete against, pick one" Its the result of realizing that the previous system (ie -2006) was unenforceable. Rather than have unenforceable rules on the book, they got rid of the rule, but not in a way that can logical co-exist with the rest of the US Dance industry.

I applaud them for getting rid of a rule that they couldn't/wouldn't enforce (of course I would have preferred them to find a meaningful rule they could enforce OR come up with a compromise solution that NDCA could accept officially) I suspect they would have preferred the same, but I can understand how hard it is to change, but I think thats because USA Dance wasn't looking at the big picture (since it is admittedly outside the scope of their organization)... but if USA Dance wants to continue to push their rules change on NDCA they need to flesh out the system in such as way as to offer benefits to the other member organizations...

star_gazer

07-11-2007, 03:57 PM

Because its a rather meaningless distinction then. Its basically saying "We have two pools of people you can compete against, pick one"
That is certainly the way it appears to be working for the most part. And if amateurs can not teach at all there is the additional push to go pro before you are really ready to compete with the pros.

Laura

07-11-2007, 03:59 PM

c) push for adoption of USA Dance's Mixed Proficiency version of Pro-Am as the replacement after the deprecation of am/pro labels.

Its probably not a complete plan of course, but I think any solution needs to address all three of those areas to have any real chance of gathering enough support

Yes, I agree those three points have to be addressed.

Here's a detail I thought of:

Since Mixed Proficiency only addresses Syllabus-level dancers, what about those of us who do Pro/Am on the post-Syllabus level (called "Open" or "Advanced" or "Gold Star")? Would it be better to simply extend Mixed Proficiency to encompass those levels, or to let the erstwhile open-level Pro/Am couples just slog it out with the lower-level pros and upper-middle-to-upper-level amateurs? (In which case a Pro could have several "partners" in the system -- their true peer who they do their highest level events with, and then any number of auxillary partners who they do these other open events with.)

Laura

07-11-2007, 04:03 PM

And if amateurs can not teach at all there is the additional push to go pro before you are really ready to compete with the pros.
Well, there are pros and then there are pros. What about all the people who took teacher training and started teaching wedding couples etc. and so became pros by default while they were still basically Syllabus-level dancers, never having had the benefit of working their way up through the amateur ranks? If someone like that wanted to compete, they would have to compete as a Pro even if they aren't really ready to compete with the pros.

Sometimes I think that the relative lack of low-level pros raising their game and getting into competition is a result of the amateur/pro distinction as it has existed in rule and in practice over the past 20 years. The barrier to entry, even for the Rising Star divisions, is extremely high. It's to the point where it could seem that the only way to get prepped for it would be to have been an amateur slogging it out through Pre-Champ and Championship for a while.

But I digress....

star_gazer

07-11-2007, 04:16 PM

It's to the point where it could seem that the only way to get prepped for it would be to have been an amateur slogging it out through Pre-Champ and Championship for a while.... Slogging it out...apt description :)

Zhena

07-11-2007, 04:18 PM