Adventures with an IDTA syllabus... :)

[ant]

Why: because a study text assumes no prior knowledge? I don't follow your logic, I'm afraid. The real issue is whether the candidate can demonstrate the necessary dance and teaching skills and mastery of the syllabus material when they present themselves for examination. It is a fundamental principle of the Association's Code of Professional Conduct that a teacher should .

The answer to the above in part is bound in with the passage being discussed. As I understand it, candidates are examined based upon the syllabus and accompanying instruction manual. Where the instruction manual is wrong, inaccurate or incomplete, which is what I am suggesting here, I would suggest that the method of study and examination will not produce a competant teacher and if these teachers in addition have no prior knowledge they will not be able use this prior knowledge to correct the situation.

Let's just agree to disagree about the interpretation of the text.

I cannot see how limiting the debate furthers the understanding but I will confine my replies to the areas that you have carried on debating.

But please note that I haven't paraphrased the language, or assumed its meaning - but quoted it, verbatim. There is a difference

You originally quoted this, your post #196:

To be fair, the book doesn't have a lot to say, but what it says is reasonable:

Quote:
It is a transfer of weight by invading the partner's space. It is performed when the dancer's leg or foot is placed against the other partner's leg or foot and at the moment when the weight is transferred to the working leg. The partner's weight is also displaced.

It is very important not to hit the partner's leg or foot, but to achieve displacement only by weight transfer of the body.

But you are now saying this is the verbatim quote per your post #208

Quote:
It is a transfer of weight ... performed when the dancer's leg or foot is placed against the other partner's leg or foot ... at the moment when the weight is transferred

I would suggest that this is not verbatim because it is not compatible with the original post#196 as well being incomplete and inaccurate.

 

[UKDancer]

I wonder if the people testing for some diploma or whatever would actually be able to recognize good AT dancing if they saw it. I mean, if some accomplished and respected (within AT circles) dancer and teacher went in and tested...would they even be able to see that he or she is competent and qualified. I could just be extremely cynical, but somehow I doubt it.

Well, the key phrase was 'competent or qualified'. I'm confident, from what I know of the process, that a candidate of accomplishment and respect within AT circles would have no difficulty in gaining high marks in the Diploma examination, as long as they were familiar with the requirements of the syllabus. The examiners may not be tango specialists, but they're not daft and they're very experienced in what they do.

However, within the narrow meaning of the word 'qualified' (in this context), next to no one in AT circles IS 'qualified'. This will only change, over time, if the organisations that provide syllabii and suitable qualifications get the process more-or-less right. It is very easy to criticise bodies like the IDTA (and they are not the only organisation in the frame - DVIDA and UKA both have well-established certifications, and the ISTD's is in development), but the syllabus and technique are quite likely to be revised in the light of experience and feedback.

I don't think that there is any intention, on the part of such organisations, to 'take over' tango, or alter it in any way. No one thinks it odd that you need qualifications to teach in schools, or to practise medicine or drive a bus. Tango isn't so completely removed from other activities that it inhabits a different world from everything and everyone else, even if many of its followers behave as though that were so.

Tango is a dance and we can't really be surprised if the large dance organisations have a passing interest in it. It would be rather odd if they didn't.

 

[UKDancer]

...this is not verbatim because it is not compatible with the original post#196 as well being incomplete and inaccurate.

Are you not familiar with the usage of ellipsis? I'll leave you to cut and paste the 'missing words' back into the gaps that are clearly indicated. They don't alter the meaning, which is plain enough.

This is just silly, and I'm done with the issue.

 

[Peaches]

Well, the key phrase was 'competent or qualified'. I'm confident, from what I know of the process, that a candidate of accomplishment and respect within AT circles would have no difficulty in gaining high marks in the Diploma examination, as long as they were familiar with the requirements of the syllabus. The examiners may not be tango specialists, but they're not daft and they're very experienced in what they do.

However, within the narrow meaning of the word 'qualified' (in this context), next to no one in AT circles IS 'qualified'. This will only change, over time, if the organisations that provide syllabii and suitable qualifications get the process more-or-less right. It is very easy to criticise bodies like the IDTA (and they are not the only organisation in the frame - DVIDA and UKA both have well-established certifications, and the ISTD's is in development), but the syllabus and technique are quite likely to be revised in the light of experience and feedback.

I don't think that there is any intention, on the part of such organisations, to 'take over' tango, or alter it in any way. No one thinks it odd that you need qualifications to teach in schools, or to practise medicine or drive a bus. Tango isn't so completely removed from other activities that it inhabits a different world from everything and everyone else, even if many of its followers behave as though that were so.

Tango is a dance and we can't really be surprised if the large dance organisations have a passing interest in it. It would be rather odd if they didn't.

I understand your points, I'm just not convinced that the examiners would have enough of an understanding of AT themselves to recognize a well-danced AT if it were to bite them in the butt.

 

[UKDancer]

I understand your points, I'm just not convinced that the examiners would have enough of an understanding of AT themselves to recognize a well-danced AT if it were to bite them in the butt.

Fair enough, but in the marking scheme, there are very few marks for a well-danced tango. It will be no more than 90 seconds at the start of a 45 minute exam, and it is a syllabus requirement that

the majority of figures used should be selected from the syllabus

which means that a choreographed routine is almost inevitable, which is, perhaps, not what we would choose to dance in the first place.

The subject of the examination is overwhelmingly knowledge of theory and teaching ability. It is rather taken for granted, if you are presenting yourself as a candidate for a qualification that confers membership rights in a dance teaching society, that you can dance quite well. The practical demonstration just serves to confirm that presumption (but it would, of course, be possible to fail). As I said, the examiners aren't daft!

 

[Peaches]

See, and that just says to me they don't really "get" AT at all. Judge based on a routine? Psh. If they're interested in seeing if someone can actually dance AT competently, ask them to improvise. Knowledge of theory? Which one? There are multiple, equally valid theories for lots of aspects of AT.

I understand that if you're applying for certification from a teaching society that you can dance quite well. What I question is if the teaching society would know if AT was danced "quite well" or not. I don't think they would...because I don't get the impression they have the faintest clue or understanding of AT themselves. Period.

 

[UKDancer]

See, and that just says to me they don't really "get" AT at all. Judge based on a routine? Psh. If they're interested in seeing if someone can actually dance AT competently, ask them to improvise. Knowledge of theory? Which one? There are multiple, equally valid theories for lots of aspects of AT.

I understand that if you're applying for certification from a teaching society that you can dance quite well. What I question is if the teaching society would know if AT was danced "quite well" or not. I don't think they would...because I don't get the impression they have the faintest clue or understanding of AT themselves. Period.

I think you would expect me to agree that they have a way to go before they 'get it', but that's no reason not to try. Medal tests (open to anyone) are meant to test whether the candidate can dance competently, whereas the Teaching Diploma has, really, a different function.

It is very difficult to say just how competence should be tested. It's all very well saying 'just improvise' for a song, but one candidate may choose to walk for three minutes to D'Arienzo, while the next one 'performs' a carefully choreographed dance in the fantasia style to some contemporary or alternative music. Both are validly tango, but how can they be fairly compared? Would either candidate be competent to teach a beginner's class (or an advanced one)? How would you know?

A quick glance through the syllabus figures, and I see these actions: the cross; front & back eights; parallel & cross system walks; rock turns; block, sandwich and passover; displacements; sacadas; giros; sweeps. It seems reasonable that a tango teacher should be familiar with all of these (and more, probably). They should be able to dance them decently, be able to deconstruct and demonstrate each action from the leader and follower's perspective, and show that they can teach those actions.

Surely it is inevitable that in a style as varied as tango, an examination syllabus will have to try and distill some fundamentals of common application, and test knowledge about them in a non-partisan way. Inevitably, the result will be a little insipid and colourless - you can't equally please the traditionalist zealot and the anything-is-possible dancer, but there is some common ground between them, even if they couldn't actually bear to be in the same room as each other.

Its a tough challenge. Just what should you test, and how will you test it?

 

[Dave Bailey]

I wonder if the people testing for some diploma or whatever would actually be able to recognize good AT dancing if they saw it.

More importantly, I think, is asking if they can recognise good AT teaching if they see it. It's a teaching diploma, after all.

I mean, if some accomplished and respected (within AT circles) dancer and teacher went in and tested...would they even be able to see that he or she is competent and qualified.

Well... to be Devil's Advocate here, the point of the assessment is to test against the defined standard. It's not to test against whether someone is "good at the job".

If the examiners are qualified to assess whether the student meets the criteria defined in the standard, then that's all they need to do. In fact, that's all they should do.

In fact, I assume that one reason the standard is designed to be compatible with BR assessment is simply to ensure the assessors can correctly assess to the standard.

That said, the inherent problem here, as with many similar things, is that the standard is itself, well, not particularly good.

 

[Peaches]

Well, have you noticed how lots of us around here on D-F don't particularly get along...and this is just a forum.

It seems reasonable that a tango teacher should be familiar with all of these (and more, probably). They should be able to dance them decently, be able to deconstruct and demonstrate each action from the leader and follower's perspective, and show that they can teach those actions.

I.don't.disagree. At all. I never have. (I could pick on the idea of those particular things being considered basic things, or even fundamentals...but i don't have that kind of energy.) Nor do I disagree with:

an examination syllabus will have to try and distill some fundamentals of common application, and test knowledge about them in a non-partisan way

I don't think it's really of any value to the larger AT or dance world, and I don't actually think it can be done, but given that they are hell-bent on doing it, then...fine.

None of this is my concern. It's not what I brought up, and not what I'm arguing.

What I am arguing is: I don't believe the examiners are qualified to be examining AT. Period. I'd love to be proven wrong, and if I am I will be the first to admit it and apologize. But I do not fundamentally believe that those in the position of examining others are competent and qualified to do so.

 

[AndaBien]

...That said, the inherent problem here, as with many similar things, is that the standard is itself, well, not particularly good.

My constant refrain is, even if the standard is good, standardizing a non-standard dance still produces a standardized end result. It doesn't produce AT or AT teachers.

 

[Subliminal]

It is very difficult to say just how competence should be tested. It's all very well saying 'just improvise' for a song, but one candidate may choose to walk for three minutes to D'Arienzo, while the next one 'performs' a carefully choreographed dance in the fantasia style to some contemporary or alternative music. Both are validly tango, but how can they be fairly compared? Would either candidate be competent to teach a beginner's class (or an advanced one)? How would you know?

A quick glance through the syllabus figures, and I see these actions: the cross; front & back eights; parallel & cross system walks; rock turns; block, sandwich and passover; displacements; sacadas; giros; sweeps. It seems reasonable that a tango teacher should be familiar with all of these (and more, probably). They should be able to dance them decently, be able to deconstruct and demonstrate each action from the leader and follower's perspective, and show that they can teach those actions.

Surely it is inevitable that in a style as varied as tango, an examination syllabus will have to try and distill some fundamentals of common application, and test knowledge about them in a non-partisan way. Inevitably, the result will be a little insipid and colourless - you can't equally please the traditionalist zealot and the anything-is-possible dancer, but there is some common ground between them, even if they couldn't actually bear to be in the same room as each other.

Its a tough challenge. Just what should you test, and how will you test it?

It's interesting. Somehow the subject of gauging the tango experience of an instructor came up with my first teacher once. (She has about 25 years experience dancing and teaching AT.) She said something like, "I don't bother looking at figures. Anyone after a couple years can pull off most figures if that's what they focus on. I look at the walk. With the walk alone, I can tell who has been dancing 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, or more."

I'm not sure that testing for the various "-ada" moves is a valid measure of skill...

 

[bordertangoman]

My constant refrain is, even if the standard is good, standardizing a non-standard dance still produces a standardized end result. It doesn't produce AT or AT teachers.

do I have a constant refrain? Basically that I would resist anyone telling me what I should do or how to do it, and posibly for the reasons that you identify....

that "standardization" is already creating groups of tolerably good but rather dull dancers
( not saying its anyone here of course.)

 

[UKDancer]

My constant refrain is, even if the standard is good, standardizing a non-standard dance still produces a standardized end result. It doesn't produce AT or AT teachers.

Actually, I think that the dance is already standardised rather more than many would wish to admit.

But more importantly, I would say that working towards holding a teaching diploma (assuming that the candidate is not already an established and experienced teacher), is just a starting point for their subsequent development, not just as a dancer (they may already be very good), but as a teacher. It doesn't represent official recognition of the attainment of a high standard of excellence, but rather represents something like an objective measure of a minimum standard of knowledge and competence fitting a newly-qualified teacher, but hopefully one committed to personal and professional development over many years to come.

Lots of people who study academic subjects up to around first degree level have the date of their final exams as the target for their 'peak' of learning. Many cram and forget. Vocational qualifications aren't like that: they are a starting point. I could already write a better Technique for a Tango Teaching Diploma (actually, so could most people LOL). You have to have an understanding of the context of such a text, and its objectives and limitations, though, but I've been studying dance techniques for quite a while, and you acquire the knack (just as an able student soon learns how to construct an essay that will gain high marks).

I wouldn't recommend anyone goes out and buys this text: I am its fiercest critic, but a wider question would be whether there is a better way to produce AT teachers. Most of the ones of my acquaintance, including some big names on the international circuit couldn't teach their way out of a paper bag.

 

[Dave Bailey]

Getting back to this

Knowledge of theory? Which one? There are multiple, equally valid theories for lots of aspects of AT.

Oh rubbish. That way lies total anarchy.

Whilst there are of course areas of difference, and different interpretations, there are some obvious, objective, measurable criteria for AT, which are generally accepted and understood throughout the world. If there weren't such criteria, people from different areas would never be able to dance with each other.

I understand that if you're applying for certification from a teaching society that you can dance quite well. What I question is if the teaching society would know if AT was danced "quite well" or not.

Yes, and in this case the answer is "clearly not". But also, it's not that important. Because again I can't help thinking that you're focussing on the dancing too much, when the actual examination is (rightly) about the teaching.

Dancing in the context of teaching is simply displaying the ability to competently demonstrate the relevant areas to be taught. It's not about creating a work of art or anything.

If the examination shows that the teacher can adequately demonstrate the topics, to the degree required to support the teaching, then that's enough.

 

[Dave Bailey]

What I am arguing is: I don't believe the examiners are qualified to be examining AT. Period.

Actually, I'm fairly sure UKDancer agrees with you on that one. Although he might not want to say that in public

But I do not fundamentally believe that those in the position of examining others are competent and qualified to do so.

Yep, and that's a fundamental flaw in the whole process.

But that doesn't invalidate the concept of the process itself.

Plus, over time, it's possible that the examiners will themselves gain such expertise, and that the syllabus will evolve into something a bit more reasonable. Although it may be "over a long time"... quite a few years, I'd guess...