Discussion on deferred candidate issue occurs during conference

Author’s Note: Ed Altman requested that I take notes during the difficult but important discussions about teacher preparation at the 2002 T’ai Chi Chih Teachers’ Conference. What I present here is a summary of those notes. With the exception of Ed, Sandy McAlister, Justin Stone, and Pam Towne, I do not identify speakers by name but instead have made a list of concerns that I heard expressed. I have tried to be comprehensive, but I apologize if you feel your concern or comment is not well represented—or if you feel I have misrepresented any part of the presentation or discussion. In that event, please write to The Vital Force directly to make sure that your voice is heard.

During the 2002 T’ai Chi Chih conference, teachers met for four different sessions to hear Ed’s presentation about challenges facing the T’ai Chi Chih community and to offer comments about various aspects of these challenges and options for addressing them. In the first session, on the afternoon of Friday August 2nd, Ed presented what he viewed as the problem: the 12% deferral rate at teacher accreditations is unacceptable. Furthermore, it is relatively “low” since it reflects experienced auditors working extensively with less prepared candidates. Ed stressed that deferral is painful to candidates and the course instructor, that it [often] takes 18-24 months for deferred candidates to complete their training, that siphoning off experienced teachers to work only with unprepared candidates is not the best use of resources, and that the burden on him in working with deferred candidates is excessive. Ed stated that deferrals can and should be eliminated because unprepared candidates should never attend the accreditation. He believes that this problem is the result of a process that is flawed rather than the “fault” of any particular currently accredited teachers, because very good teachers have had students receive deferrals at accreditations.

Ed also reminded everyone that there are two purposes to the T’ai Chi Chih teacher accreditation process:

A. Verify that every candidate is moving well.
B. Teach candidates how to teach T’ai Chi Chih Joy Thru Movement.

Ed emphasized that right now we only get to the first goal. Part of the flaw in the current process is that we never get to the second goal, so many accredited teachers have a hard time identifying what to look for in preparing students, when students are ready to become teachers, and how to work with students who are experiencing difficulties in preparing for accreditation.

Ed listed four options for addressing the goal of eliminating deferrals:

1. Early assessment in accreditation as is. Assess students after two days of teacher training and dismiss them if they are not ready. Ed said he doesn’t have the heart to do that and it’s not always possible to tell after two days—some people change greatly over the course of the accreditation. Ed stressed that the process cannot remain as it is.

2. Video previewing. Ed noted that discussion in recent issues of The Vital Force indicates a lack of support for this option. He feels it’s hard to look at a video and see clearly how a student moves. Also, videos don’t give students a chance for growth during the accreditation. Finally, if only a few people are reviewing tapes, the responsibility for referral is taken away from teachers and there is potential to slow down the accreditation process.

3. Second look by another teacher. Either another teacher or an experienced senior teacher reviews students before they go on to be accredited. Teachers might attend an optional recertification to become an experienced senior teacher for a particular area of the country. Ed believes that this option creates a hierarchy among teachers and he is not in favor it. Most importantly, if there is a second look by another teacher, that teacher needs to know what she or he is doing. Ed has heard from teachers around the country at all experience levels that they uncertain about what to look for in order to tell if a candidate is really prepared. Ed doesn’t want to see the formation of an artificial layer of referring teachers and he also doesn’t want to hand pick teachers to do this job.

4. Two course process. This option is based in part on other education programs such as nursing and Ed believes it will provide well for the long-term growth of T’ai Chi Chih Joy Thru Movement. In Phase I, students would spend four days working intensely on movements and philosophy—on how to move. Phase I would also be open to those T’ai Chi Chih practitioners who want to deepen their practice but do not necessarily want to become teachers, a population that right now the community does not serve well. All participants in Phase I courses who are not teachers would receive a letter stating whether they are cleared for a teachers training course (Phase II) in the next nine months. In Phase II, candidates would spend 5½ days focusing on philosophy, presentations, a deeper review of the movements, and most especially, teaching skills. Phase II would essentially be the current teachers’ training course, but the work done in Phase I would allow the focus in Phase II to be on meeting the second goal (B) of teachers’ training courses.

Ann Rutherford read and made copies for all of Justin’s letter about this subject (see p. 11 for the entire text of the letter.) Justin agreed that change is needed but expressed two concerns. The first was that the increased cost of the two-phase process would limit accessibility of T’ai Chi Chih accreditation to all who want to teach (in fact, he would rather see costs decrease.) The second concern was that if candidates felt the process was too expensive, they would simply teach without accreditation. Justin emphasized that T’ai Chi Chih Joy Thru Movement is not about business and suggested that a second look by another teacher (i.e., the third option above) might be the best way to proceed as long as the second teacher was “completely impartial,” i.e., a stranger to the student and the student’s teacher. Justin noted that a second look was often used to evaluate monks in Japan.

Ed responded to these reservations with the following comments:

• The two-phase process is more expensive but right now it’s cheaper than any other accreditation process for any other spiritual/healing discipline;
• The two priorities of accessibility and high standards compete and we must choose one or the other as a higher priority;
• Right now the teaching of well prepared candidates suffers from attention given to less well prepared candidates;
• What happens in places where there is only one teacher?
• Another pair of eyes (i.e., option three) may not solve the problem of ending deferrals. Ed believes the two-course process would.

Both Pam and Sandy spoke as well, stating that the two-course process was also their preference. They both felt that costs can be kept down creatively and depend on logistics. For example, people might not fly so far to attend Phase I but instead might wait until this part of the training comes to their area of the country. Pam did not feel that people teaching without accreditation was a large issue, because people attracted to T’ai Chi Chih practice won’t do that. Sandy emphasized that even an increased fee was reasonable and that T’ai Chi Chih Joy Thru Movement is worth that cost.

Ed asked everyone to consider these ideas and options. He emphasized that he had not made a decision, but that it was up to him to do so—that is, this process was not democratic and we weren’t going to vote. He also emphasized how much he wanted to hear from teachers—that perhaps someone would come up with solutions that no one else has thought of yet. He informed everyone that course fees must increase slightly and brought up eliminating the $50 “teacher kickback” as a possible way to keep costs down.(1) He asked everyone to think about these questions: What is in the best interests of keeping T’ai Chi Chih Joy Thru Movement vibrant? Can you use option three or two on all seven continents and/or in places where there is only one teacher? He stressed that the deferrals must end and that solutions must address this problem and be geared toward the exponential growth of the T’ai Chi Chih community.

The following comments were made by numerous teachers over the next three meeting sessions (literally in the morning, afternoon, and night) one day later, on Saturday, August 3rd.

Suggestions about and/or comments in support of option three:

• Second teacher must be a stranger to the student to achieve some objectivity
• Justin talks about keeping costs down for a reason and option three would keep costs down
• Our focus should be on what Justin wants: he has a vision to spread the TCC discipline to everyone
• Source of problems is in teachers not in accreditation: don’t leave out those who are unprepared—need to bring them into the community as option three can do
• I have experienced this kind of second teacher sign-off and found it very helpful

Comments against option three:

• There may still be deferrals: second teacher may not be comfortable stating beliefs about student and/or may not know what to look for

Suggestions about and/or comments in support of option four:

• Being alone is challenging in preparing students (there is no second teacher around)
• Expensive, but benefits all to have more grounded teachers
• There are ways to keep costs down—stay at people’s homes, for example
• Accredited teachers could also benefit greatly from option four (both phases)
• Reframe phase I to be about an opportunity for continuing education—would enhance the whole community
• Affords more time to learn
• Hungry for exploration of what it means to teach the TCC movements—could start learning more about that in option four
• Relieves tremendous guilt of those who want to deepen practice without becoming a teacher (could just attend phase I courses)
• Might relieve recommending teachers to have phase I —they might not hold back so much for fear of deferral for a student
• I would have liked this process as a student and if necessary I would help my own students financially in order to attend the training
• Use a long weekend for phase I to cut down on time away from work
• Option four addresses teacher training more fully than option three, said a deferred teacher present who characterized the deferral process as growthful and painful
• Begin phase II with current teachers so we can improve
• Play with the number of days for phases—nothing is set in stone
• What about an optional Phase I?

Comments against option four:

• Option four could generate a hierarchy
• Option four would stifle or impede those with a lot of heartfelt sincerity
• We’re growing an infrastructure with option four—sounds dangerous
• You cannot teach teachers how to teach in five days
• Justin speaks about having no organization and option four sounds like an organization
• Don’t want financial barriers in students’ ways
• I wouldn’t have been able to afford accreditation if option four had been in place
• Might still have significant deferral rate with option four
• It will be a logistical nightmare to make a schedule for option four because must have many phase I’s; phase II’s must be also be offered regularly (within nine months)

Comments about Ed, Justin, Sandy, Pam:

• Ed is overstating the problem and the solution he proposes is too much
• Trust Justin
• Ed’s position is not easy and he’s not trying to impose his point of view right now
• Ed, Sandy, and Pam are very sincere
• Look again at Justin’s letter—listen to it very carefully
• We cannot be rubber stamps for Justin, and he wouldn’t want that
• Justin isn’t against option four; he said he has some concerns
• I’m very touched that Ed would share all of this with us
• Do what Justin wants: we must find a way
• We need to trust each other and not dichotomize: I trust Ed; I trust Justin
• Justin had a vision and Ed was part of it

Comments about accreditation, deferrals, etc.:

• I felt I was missing something in my accreditation, though I was fairly well prepared (i.e. less well prepared candidates slowed down the learning process)
• Deferral is awful for the student
• It’s very difficult to work with deferred candidates, said an experienced teacher who has worked with several
• Teachers should go with their students to accreditations
• I’m not opposed to deferrals, but communication (rather than blaming) is extremely important in this process
• What about recertification—it’s valuable, though no one wants to hear that word
• With all due respect, I expect some people to pass their accreditation and some not to
• Need to include coaching in teacher training
• Question for Ed: Do all deferred candidates complete the process? (Ed said that in his six years of experience everyone except for one plans to.)
• Question for Ed: If you disregarded students who weren’t ready, would you be able to do what you wanted to do (i.e. address goal B.)? (Ed said he couldn’t say for sure.)
• Is TCC accreditation a high school course (cater to lower level students) or a college course (no catering—hold bar high and some fail)?

Comments about T’ai Chi Chih Joy Thru Movement and overall purpose:

• The TCC discipline has a purpose in this world and this purpose is joy for everyone
• The only way the TCC practice can spread is through the sincerity of its teachers
• We all have a common goal of getting good new teachers
• Doing TCC movements and teaching TCC movements are not one and not two
• TCC practice is a discipline so I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to increase opportunities to know it more deeply
• Perhaps this has grown beyond what Justin wants
• What we need is renewal
• Dedicate this conference to seeds of a solution
• Must remember JOY through movement; I have only heard joy mentioned twice so far at this conference
• Change is difficult and this is about change; we must come from a place of compassion
• Need to make sure that in the end we all come together as a community—that’s the best we have to offer to the world
• I went through “teacher” certification but what I got was “improvement on my movements” (valuable but not enough)
• The answer is not in words (listen to your heart)

Other comments included:

• The checklist is good, with modifications
• Everyone here is the result of the current system, so it’s done well so far
• All options will create issues
• Neither option is about making money
• You can’t teach the TCC movements until you have reached certain levels
• This discussion is exciting
• I support anything that will raise skills
• Must have disagreements and tears and then you feel better later
• I have no opinion on this issue, but I know it’s best to go to the source to solve problems
• The root of problem is us
• No, this discussion isn’t comfortable, dammit!
• Feel your feet

The comments ended shortly before the traditional candlelight rededication ceremony on Saturday night. Ed proposed the following option for us to think about in the days to come:

5. Modification of options three and four. Consider a two-phase system where the first phase is optional. In order to attend teacher accreditation, a student would need two signatures from accredited teachers (one of which would likely come from the student’s “main” teacher.) One way to obtain a second signature would be to attend a phase I type of course and get a signature there. Another way would be from any other accredited teacher in the students’ area (as in option three.) Then the second phase would be the official accreditation course, with the focus on learning how to teach T’ai Chi Chih Joy Thru Movement.

(1) For those who don’t know, currently it is the practice for referring teachers to receive $50 for each of their students who successfully completes teacher accreditation. Not all referring teachers have received or know about this money.