Date Posted:Mon, Jan 22 2007, 17:11:11 Author: just a thought Subject: Almost every school I know has teachers who do not have a TC teach for them at times, sometimes fairly often. I don't think these schools can survive without them. Why is everyone so eager to expose these situations and say they are wrong? I know that there is a rule that says it shouldn't happen but we all know it does so maybe the rule is too stringent?
If this situation were truly not allowed, it would have a terrible affect on many schools and dancers as so many now function with additional teachers.
Many non-TC teachers are excellent and parents and dancers are happy with the situation but I know some who are not. Maybe the solution is that the TC must disclose how many classes or how often they are not taught by TC and who the non-cert teacher will be before registering for the class/school? Maybe the officiall rules should make some allowance for non-cert teachers with clear limits on when they can be used instead of disallowing them altogether?
Just some examples, once a month a sub may be used, non cert may be used for beginners, 3/4 of all classes must be taught by TC... at the very least, an allowance for sick/vacation/emergency to be covered by non-cert. teachers. It seems there should be some flexibility here but also honest disclosure to the parents and dancers.
[>
This makes a lot of sense. It would in most cases be better then canceling classes. And better then having TCs rushing from one class to cover another, because of illness or hols. Would need to have parents given full knowledge of rules for this though, to stop the less fair TCs taking advantage by over use of non-cert teachers. -- wishwillow, Tue, Jan 23 2007, 5:46:29 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ] [Edit] [> [>
On the other hand how would you feel if the TC decided "your" class was too far and never attended. You wouldn't get the same attention, as other dancers in the same school and potentially not progress as far. You might feel that it would be better to move schools so that you could get more tuition from the qualified TC, but hey presto up pops another rule that they never go against - transfer ban. Would that be fair? -- happened to us, Tue, Jan 23 2007, 9:48:13 [1]
[> [> [>
no, it definitely isn't fair but if your TC doesn't go to your location anymore, you are free to go without a transfer if req'd distance to nearest class is met. I know schools where this has happened recently in UK and US and dancers had free transfer. No letters given in one of the situations so dancers who didn't know the rules where stuck. -- ones who knew got out free, Tue, Jan 23 2007, 22:15:36 [1]
[> [> [> [>
each situation differs. In our case one of the two "local" classes (45 min + drive minimum) continued, so the nearest class was still "only" 35 miles. All other classes at least 125 miles (in UK a 3 hour drive minimum). Still banned as we had one local class per week -- inconsistent?, Wed, Jan 24 2007, 8:57:52 [1]
[>
I don't thionk people particularly want to expose this. It is more a case of showing that all rules can have reasonable exceptions but CLRG don't allow them when it benefits a dancer (eg transfer in awkward situations as above) -- rules need revamp, Tue, Jan 23 2007, 9:50:49 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ] [Edit]
[>
The reason for this rule is to stop unqualified people teaching. It is very easy to injure a young dancer if you don't know what you are doing. However what might work would be a student teacher system, where those studying for their TC would be able to teach sometimes. This is how it's done in the ballet world -- .., Wed, Jan 24 2007, 11:21:33 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ] [Edit] [> [>
As far as I know, there is nothing in the TC exams relating to dancers' physical safety. You could therefore have a non-TC who is experienced in this department and a TC who is not. -- I don't think the qualification makes a difference., Wed, Jan 24 2007, 23:27:58 [1]
