Thread: Good dancer equals good teacher

Do you have to be a good dancer to be a good teacher?

Let's assume a teacher cannot dance that well, she/he cannot hear the music, has no ability to interpret the music, cannot perform very well technically. Can they still teach successfully?

My gut response is no. These are all important point for teaching and dance in general. If the instructor cannot do these things then the students suffer and often inherit the bad habits of their instructors.

Maybe the theory side of it i.e. the history of bellydance type stuff :P

I'd don't see how you can teach people to be technically proficient without being so yourself.

Especially with teaching dance, students look at what you are doing and try to emulate it.

The best teachers aren't always the best performers and the best performers aren't always the best teachers but of them need to be able to dance.

Originally Posted by Ishtar_Asha

Maybe the theory side of it i.e. the history of bellydance type stuff :P

I'd don't see how you can teach people to be technically proficient without being so yourself.

Especially with teaching dance, students look at what you are doing and try to emulate it.

The best teachers aren't always the best performers and the best performers aren't always the best teachers but of them need to be able to dance.

This is the yardstick by which most of us measure what constitutes a good teacher. I had a student recently who came to me as a newbie. She had danced a little but her skills were poor and she had no technical ability. She had signed on for a teacher training course which promised she would be teaching within the year. The cost was £1,300. Things like this put me in despair.

A good dancer will make a good teacher if s/he has the ability to communicate her ability.
Training in communication and passing on knowledge will always help.
A teacher should have authority and a correct and proper manner when dealing with his/her students.
S/he should be able to explain him/herself and breakdown moves and to be able to spot the individual and group needs of her students.
S/he should have the confidence and sense of reality to deal with the "sticky moments."
We are assuming s/he has a good background in the style of dance s/he is teaching BUT you know she doesn't necessarily have to have attended specialist "teacher training". Lots of men and women have what it takes to teach because they are good at what they do and good communicators.
To my mind the important thing is that s/he does know what she is doing, has not been to 10 classes him/herself and off they went into teaching and that s/he is articulate and savvy as to human nature.
And so important is that they have also got the business side of it right: insurance,health and safety, taxes etc.
I'm embarking on foundation training to make sure I have got some aspects right around the prerifery as well as teaching dance technique. I've taught senior school and adult night class for 25 years but I'm still keen to make sure I am using what is useful when applied to my dance.
As to knowledge about the dance, it's as important to carry on studying at workshops, with master teachers and watching good dancers as to attend training. If you are not a student yourself, you do your own a diservice.
BUT I think a training certificate of some sort will soon be essential to anyone wanting to teach to meet PLI criteria. Nothing we can do about it. Let's hope the programmes ensure that someone who passes is a safe and competant teacher and it's not just a money making exercise.

I have also met good teachers who are not the most inspiring performers.

And I recently suffered a workshop with a well known UK teacher , the structure of which showed she had made no effort to plan, had no substance to it and in another of hers a friend told me, it was the same story only worse a lack of knowledge BUT she has a reputation and many years of dancing in Southern England and is "trained."

Originally Posted by kharis_UK

This is the yardstick by which most of us measure what constitutes a good teacher. I had a student recently who came to me as a newbie. She had danced a little but her skills were poor and she had no technical ability. She had signed on for a teacher training course which promised she would be teaching within the year. The cost was £1,300. Things like this put me in despair.

She should not have been accepted..Any entry to University or specialist training requires qualifications either academic or aptitude. The organisations will cut their own throats and their bits of paper will be worthless even if in the short term they gain a student and make money. They need telling. Any course should look at a student's background, consult their teacher etc before entry. How else do we ensure ability and standards?

Before I was eligable for teacher training I had to know my subject to degree level and show my suitabilty to be let loose on students then demonstrate I could "wack it" for one year as a student and another as a "probationer".

We also will need to follow up on trainees and put their welfare as well as their students in mind.

I think Lizajuk has hit it on the head. Communication is the key, although technical proficiency is a given. My best teacher was technically proficient and was pretty demanding and explicit about technique, but she wasn't the most inspiring performer. Communicating as a teacher and expressing the music in a way that touches the audience are two different skills. The dancer I most admired as a performer couldn't teach worth a @#$t, so I learned from going to watch her on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by kharis_UK

Do you have to be a good dancer to be a good teacher?

Let's assume a teacher cannot dance that well, she/he cannot hear the music, has no ability to interpret the music, cannot perform very well technically. Can they still teach successfully?

I think it depends on what you mean by "good dancer". I think a teacher SHOULD be able to do fluid moves such as figure 8's fluidly, SHOULD be able to layer shimmies over them, SHOULD be able to do graceful arms with all that, and SHOULD be able to demonstrate and explain good dance posture. In addition, she should be capable of recognizing accents and phrasing in the music and doing something appropriate to them, should be familiar with different rhythms and helping students hear/respond to them.

However, I don't think she needs to have superb charisma on stage, or be a gifted choreographer, or leave audiences breathless with wonder. In other words, she doesn't need to be an "Artist with a capital A".

I agree with the majority on this one. 'Good' is absolutely essential. Most students will subconsciously pick up the flaws of their teacher, whether it's poor posture, dropped elbows, staring at the floor, or not executing movements fully, not paying particular attention to the beat or the music. A full mastery of basic technique is essential to good teaching, and if you have that then you'll be a 'good' dancer.

I don't think a good teacher needs to be an 'extraordinary' performer UNLESS she's teacher master level classes. If she's going to teach pros and other instructors, she should have worked out the flaws in her dancing and at least begun to develop some of the hallmarks of greatness, otherwise what could she have to offer them?

P.S. Flip side, being an 'extraordinary' performer doesn't guarantee that a dancer will be even a passably good teacher, even for beginners. Even the greatest dancer starts teaching as a total teaching noob and has to learn how to educate others.

Originally Posted by kharis_UK

Do you have to be a good dancer to be a good teacher?

Let's assume a teacher cannot dance that well, she/he cannot hear the music, has no ability to interpret the music, cannot perform very well technically. Can they still teach successfully?

It's a matter of degree. How good is good? If you mean "wow, amazing" then I'd say it isn't a requirement. If you mean by "good" just to be able to dance in the style, to the music, at an "acceptable" level not to cause embarrassment to those watching, I’d say yes.

An inability to interpret the music would be a big drawback – unless s/he was only teaching costuming, stage presence, dance history etc. ,r:;

However, the reverse is not necessarily true – you don’t have to be a good teacher (or choreographer) to be a good dancer. Too often people are amazed by xxx and want to take classes with her. Dancing ability is no predictor of teaching ability.

Originally Posted by lizajuk

A good dancer will make a good teacher if s/he has the ability to communicate her ability.
Training in communication and passing on knowledge will always help.
A teacher should have authority and a correct and proper manner when dealing with his/her students.
S/he should be able to explain him/herself and breakdown moves and to be able to spot the individual and group needs of her students.
S/he should have the confidence and sense of reality to deal with the "sticky moments."
We are assuming s/he has a good background in the style of dance s/he is teaching BUT you know she doesn't necessarily have to have attended specialist "teacher training". Lots of men and women have what it takes to teach because they are good at what they do and good communicators.

Sounds good. Yes, there are those who are natural teachers - but good teacher training should give them more tools to teach with - for instance recognizing different learning styles and ways of addressing them, the concept of lesson planning and having explicit goals for (say) the term, background information on anatomy and physiology that helps them provide safe and effective physical development.

Originally Posted by kharis_UK

Let's assume a teacher cannot dance that well, she/he cannot hear the music, has no ability to interpret the music, cannot perform very well technically.

If a teacher cannot do this then he/she cannot teach his/her students raqs sharqi. Interpreting the music is the very essence of the dance!

I would say no, given all the things that this hypothetical teacher cannot do. But one thing is for sure; being a great dancer sure doesn't guarantee that one is going to be a decent teacher! Teaching has its own set of skills - the ability to analyze what you are doing and communicate that to your students, to come up with different ways to communicate the information if the original way does not work for someone, patience, a passion for teaching, and dedication to continued learning on the part of the instructor.

Originally Posted by nasila

If a teacher cannot do this then he/she cannot teach his/her students raqs sharqi. Interpreting the music is the very essence of the dance!

I have to agree with this - what are you left with if the teacher has no ability to hear or interpret the music - kinda implies no knowledge of rhythm either - and if she can't demonstrate the moves either -**?!

Communication skills are important - and as Lisajuk says the ability to notice what the group and the individual need - etc etc takes a lot to be a reasonably good teacher.
Something that isn't often mentioned is also to be aware that students will in some cases become better than their teachers, some hate the thought of this - so question - why are they teaching?

As with teaching of any subject, you need to have a good enough foundation. I've known of english ed majors that somehow got assigned math classes to teach, not enough foundation in the subject to do well.

But there certainly is more to teaching anything than just knowing ones subject well. And I say this as a former certified high school teacher (ok, maybe I am still certified, but I don't teach anymore, so I don't really care). It is that communication thing.

Those who can, do.
Those who can do MORE, teach.

in the university dance department, where i attended, we had some dance professors who couldn't dance their way out of a paper bag. they were teaching things like "beginning movement for non-dancers" for the drama students, labanotation, history, staging, costuming, supervising senior projects, etc.

there is a place for those who understand dance intellectually, but can not make their bodies do what they understand in their minds. however, it sounds like the beginning student in question would have to do a lot of studying and research to get to that place within the time frame of the training program.

Do you have to be a good dancer to be a good teacher?

Let's assume a teacher cannot dance that well, perhaps
she/he cannot hear the music, NO.
has no ability to interpret the music, NO.
cannot perform very well technically. perhaps

Can they still teach successfully? perhaps - if they have something to teach that is worth learning, if they understand what they're doing, but simply cannot execute it well, a talented student can learn from them.
like the tango, it takes two. it takes a teacher, but it also takes a student. some people who are talented and perceptive can learn more from their teacher than their teacher is capable to teaching. one could say they teach themselves.


but in ME dance at least, someone who cannot hear the music cannot teach the dance. she might be able to teach how to execute certain movements, but she she can't teach dance.

Musicality is a must. If you can't count/keep to music yourself, how on earth are you ever going to teach it to your students? There are people though who do not even realise they're not in time with the music, and I believe there are people who just can never be taught that.

Originally Posted by shaia jean

I would say no, given all the things that this hypothetical teacher cannot do. But one thing is for sure; being a great dancer sure doesn't guarantee that one is going to be a decent teacher! Teaching has its own set of skills - the ability to analyze what you are doing and communicate that to your students, to come up with different ways to communicate the information if the original way does not work for someone, patience, a passion for teaching, and dedication to continued learning on the part of the instructor.

I completely agree! ..g.:

Slightly off topic--I have studied with some "older" ballet instructors who could no longer perform even to teach in class--one had to use a cane to move around. They were master teachers, however, with a profound understanding of the dance, music, movement, choreography and vocabulary of the dance. I can't imagine trying to follow them as a beginner but as an advanced student I was able to benefit greatly from their instruction. I imagine the same could be said for some belly dance instructors who no longer perform, although the "vocabulary" of belly dance is not as "fixed" as that of ballet. So while the ability to perform does not seem essential to good teaching, I believe the other qualities listed here are necessary.

But they WERE good dancers in their time. That's the point. They might not be able to move but that doesn't mean they don't' know how to correct posture, give hints as to the music and all that....

Musicality is so important that if you do not have it, you cannot teach it.
Movements on the other hand - my teacher has knee problems and cannot do all the moves, but she can explain well enough for us to do them and correct our techniques.
Any teacher I would take with should have had something of a performing career, should understand the music and how to do a good performance. Because that's what I want to learn.

Ok...I have a different "take" on this thread. I'm actually going to say "yes" it's possible for a fairly inept dancer to be a good teacher (*ducking under the desk*). This may get a bit long...but I thought it might be good to share a different perspective that I've slowly learned myself.

We have a local teacher who kind of fits this category although she probably has waaaaay more musical ability than the aforementioned ficitional one. She teaches a billion classes (slight exaggeration) every week at a bunch of different places. She attends the local haflas and her students dance at most of the local functions. She and her students are everywhere.

From a technical standpoint she leaves a lot to be desired. Her groups do not look coherent or organized, her choreographies are *ahem* very creative (seriously, she teaches jazz boxes!!), and the technique is very sloppy. And for a long time, many of the other dancers & teachers in the area would roll their eyes every time she would show up.

But here's what I noticed. Her students love her!! Seriously. They are happy and giddy and excited. They are all "on" when it comes to their creativity. I never understood it. I just couldn't imagine that this relatively talent-free individual could drum up so much support. And it's not like she keeps them sheltered. They are everywhere.

This teacher also participates in a local event which features workshops from all the local instructors, and the after-event surveys from her students rate her as "excellent" and "very good". In fact, my girlfriend Nicki (who had never danced a step in her life) took the entire weekend of workshops and said that she had her first "aha" moment in this teacher's class. Nicki said that most of the time she felt like she was awkwardly mimicking other people's movements, but that when she got to this particular class she finally felt for the first time in her life that she was dancing.

Wow!! So I finally "got it". This teacher's talent is that she helps women FEEL like they are dancing. She helps women believe in themselves and feel more confident. She helps women really believe that it really is okay to be older, have children, be too tall, be too short, too fat, too thin. She makes these women feel beautiful. Damn, that's a pretty special gift!!

So she has found her niche. Those students who are learning to just kick back and enjoy themselves really are attracted to her, and the students that really have any talent or promise eventually move on to better technical instructors.

continued....

Sometimes I think we can easily get caught up at wanting to be "good". Most of us on this list take our art seriously. We strive to get better and develop our technique. But we also need to remember that a lot of women out there do it once a week to get away from the kids, or to treat themselves to some "me" time, or to find a different form of exercise. Perhaps they aren't "dancers" per se, but they are interested in this dance for whatever reason. And there are teachers who serve this niche market well who don't really need to have artistic talent to back it up.

I never thought I'd ever say it, but this teacher definitely has her place in the world, even if her dance isn't the most inspiring to me. She has brought more women to this art than anyone else I know. And for that, I am grateful.

Namaste,
Samira

Wow, that's wonderful. I guess it is true, in trying to better oneself, we can perhaps be a bit hard on others no quite on the same wavelength, there are many numbers of dancers purely there to have fun and feel good about themselves.

Our studio is a good example of this.We have beginners right through to professionals, some who just want a challenge/fun, others who aspire to more. While the teacher has 22 years experience under her belt, is an amazing choreographer and performer. I believe what perhaps sets her apart from other teachers is the enthusiasm she instills into her students. It is totally infectious. We could all do with more of that. Thankyou for your insight Samira. No need to duck from my perspective. Ha!

It does concern me.
You do want your belly dancer to be trained in the art of dance. Yes? before she dances
Er........... Do you expect your teacher to be trained in some way in the art of teaching?
And do you question who is teaching the teacher?

Originally Posted by Samira_dncr

From a technical standpoint she leaves a lot to be desired. Her groups do not look coherent or organized, her choreographies are *ahem* very creative (seriously, she teaches jazz boxes!!), and the technique is very sloppy. And for a long time, many of the other dancers & teachers in the area would roll their eyes every time she would show up.

But here's what I noticed. Her students love her!! Seriously. They are happy and giddy and excited. They are all "on" when it comes to their creativity. I never understood it. I just couldn't imagine that this relatively talent-free individual could drum up so much support. And it's not like she keeps them sheltered. They are everywhere.

Because what she does is highly accessible. They don't have to be any good at the dance to feel they've achieved something. It's called Line Dance Belly Dance....follow the leader repetitive stuff that a mule could do....eventually with enough repetition. There's no skills involved, no sweat or hard work and certainly no need for personal interpretation, which is the core and essence of belly dance. But, hey ho! I guess it's what appeals to the masses. From a personal viewpoint, I could do this too, but I'd get absolutely no satisfaction from it and would consider it a waste of my skills, training and hard work. Some inherent part of me considers it sacrilege, a squandering of all that has been passed down to us.

You're right. She does fill a niche... The world is filled with niches such as this...

And then when all niches are filled, we have a plethora of unskilled, inept dancers stampeding for their 15 minutes of fame. They pop up everywhere, coz Ms Niche Filler has the wherewithall to bombard every TV station, festival and event with her 'troupe' of bellydancers. And then the watching public assume that this is the general standard of dance. And then we all get tarred with the same brush of incompetence. And so the battle goes on....

Originally Posted by kharis_UK

Because what she does is highly accessible. They don't have to be any good at the dance to feel they've achieved something. It's called Line Dance Belly Dance....follow the leader repetitive stuff that a mule could do....eventually with enough repetition. There's no skills involved, no sweat or hard work and certainly no need for personal interpretation, which is the core and essence of belly dance. But, hey ho! I guess it's what appeals to the masses. From a personal viewpoint, I could do this too, but I'd get absolutely no satisfaction from it and would consider it a waste of my skills, training and hard work. Some inherent part of me considers it sacrilege, a squandering of all that has been passed down to us.

You're right. She does fill a niche... The world is filled with niches such as this...

And then when all niches are filled, we have a plethora of unskilled, inept dancers stampeding for their 15 minutes of fame. They pop up everywhere, coz Ms Niche Filler has the wherewithall to bombard every TV station, festival and event with her 'troupe' of bellydancers. And then the watching public assume that this is the general standard of dance. And then we all get tarred with the same brush of incompetence. And so the battle goes on....

I know it looks like Kharis indoctrinated me, but I do agree again and unfortunately it's Mrs Niche Filler who gets on the telly and her bonny bouncing bellydancers make the audience think that they've just seen the heights of bellydance...who's gonna tell them there's Randa Kamal out there!

lot's of people don't want to be Randa or dance like Randa and the general public may not 'get' Randa. Lots of ladies are quite happy bouncing along to those cookie cutter routines and quite often those classes are pretty busy.

It's how I started, it was fine dancing to a track but ask me to dance to anything else and I hadn't got a clue!
It was a fun workout but I knew there was more out there and I switched styles/teachers. Part of me thinks if only I'd started out with my current teacher how much better would I be as a dancer? Yet part of me understands that not everyone wants to drill for Britain, they just want somewhere to shake and dress up. I guess it's up the teacher to decide where they wish to market themselves. Students like myself ultimately make the choice with our cash as we become more informed.

Kharis - Have you approached the person running the training and told them of your concerns?

Originally Posted by kharis_UK

From a personal viewpoint, I could do this too, but I'd get absolutely no satisfaction from it and would consider it a waste of my skills, training and hard work.

Yeah, but why would you want to? I'm not suggesting that everyone dummy down their teaching to make things accessible. Of course this world needs highly qualified instructors, but it also needs instructors who help their students love the dance. Just because this particular teacher isn't extremely gifted as a dancer doesn't mean she doesn't have something to contribute.

I've personally lost students because I was too technical and took the dance too seriously. Did I serve the community at large when I turned off people to the dance? Definitely not. I feel pretty sad about it actually. But it was part of my own learning curve as a teacher. And I needed to recognize that my job is not merely to teach dance skills, but to meet the needs of the person that wants to learn. Sometimes my needs and the student's needs don't match up. That's ok. And that's also the time to refer to someone else.

And then when all niches are filled, we have a plethora of unskilled, inept dancers stampeding for their 15 minutes of fame. They pop up everywhere, coz Ms Niche Filler has the wherewithall to bombard every TV station, festival and event with her 'troupe' of bellydancers. And then the watching public assume that this is the general standard of dance. And then we all get tarred with the same brush of incompetence. And so the battle goes on....

I can't agree with this. She merely fills ONE niche. There are many many others niches to be filled. Some instructors appeal to students who want extremely high-level instruction. That's why people fly all around the world to study with Suhaila. And besides, there's nothing stopping more talented instructors from bombarding the public with their troupes.

Bellydancing is not reserved only for women who want to strive to be the very best performers and athletes. Bellydancing is for everyone. And this means that there will naturally be a continuum of talent-free to talented individuals who are involved with it. This is ok. It's what make the world go round.

I saw a Mexican dance demonstration at a children's museum with my children the other day. The girls who were dancing were obviously brand new young dancers with costumes on (fairly talent-free .w.: ). Did I get an accurate representation of Mexican dancing? Probably not. But it still opened the door to educating my children about other types of dancing. Did it matter that they were out there representing their culture in such a bad light? Not really.

I'm not saying that watching talent-free dancers is something that I personally embrace. But watching my friend light up because she finally believed in herself as a dancer was something I'd embrace over and over again.

Samira, I loved your post. 95% of the women who take bellydance classes will NEVER dance professionally, and the dance has a great deal to offer them.

I think the idea that adults must always be Driven is harmful. I think it's OK for grownups to *gasp* have a little joy in their lives.

I think it's important to make very clear that you're teaching a recreational class and anyone who aspires to go pro should see you after class for some referrals (I've taught hundreds of students and so far had two who expressed an interest in going pro, none who've actually pursued it). And I'm glad there are very serious teachers out there I can refer them to, I think the dance world needs both types.

My own classes are gearing up to be very performance oriented in the higher levels, and students feel (internal) pressure to progress through the levels if they stay. I've been trying to figure out how to offer a purely recreational track in a way that will be equally appealing to my performance track, this thread reminded me to get back to that task.