There are two basic methods of evaluating the instructor: (1) what you perceive directly, and (2) what you can establish through indirect examination. Some of the preliminaries to this stage are discussed in the articles above. Moving forward, of course you should determine your comfort with the instructor and the school personally, but the information below addresses primarily consideration of the instructor's level of knowledge.
A good example of the first method, direct perception, was expressed by a friend of mine who decided to quit from a school after 15 years of training. Despite the fact that the school was reasonably mundane to the naked eye, he looked into the instruction to find the fundamental nature of the techniques as taught. He said it was nothing more than violence and aggression. He developed proficiency in technical skills and wanted more knowledge beyond merely how to overpower an attacker and prove one’s strength. He looked at the teacher and directly understood that he had nothing more to offer. The teacher only knew how to prove how strong he was in order to dominate the attacker. If you spoke with the teacher separately, you never would have drawn that conclusion. The instructor used all of the right words. However, his understanding was rooted in this form of violence and was evident in his technique. My friend correctly decided to quit. This sort of phenomena is very common in martial arts training and suggested my friend outgrew his teacher. One should ask questions of the instructor at the outset to assess this possibility with any potential school one evaluates.
Knowing this fact and the dangers of devoting 15 years to training in one art only to discover the time wasted, another friend embarked upon finding a teacher. In this case, as the instructors were supposedly high level masters with excellent lineage charts, he did not expect to be able to directly perceive the level of their practice. Instead, he utilized indirect examination. Here one goes to the instructor and asks a series of questions over time. That part is simple enough. The problem crops up, however, when one receives the answers. The reason one seeks a teacher is because they are supposed to know more than you do. How does one evaluate whether their answers are correct? Certain basic ideas, such as kindness, sincerity, selflessness, patience, generosity, ethics, etc. come to mind whereas egotism, conceit, and arrogance should be eschewed. These notions are clearly in the best interests of society, and martial arts training should develop one’s character in a positive manner. Think about the example of someone who claims to be the best martial artist in the area. If he is correct, making that statement is fine. However, has he met every martial artist in the area and does he really know? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the statement shows arrogance, a weakness for a martial artist.
Some of the more profound ideas, however, manifest in a variety of ways that may be difficult to fathom. For example, an instructor teaches as an important part of the program that, according to Confucius, a superior person should not compete with others, but only with themselves. On the surface, it sounds as if this idea might result in developing positive character, but this notion falters upon further inspection. How do I compete with myself if there are not two of me present at the same time? If I compete with the past or the future me, which me is supposed to win? If I believe I am supposed to achieve steady and continuous progress over time, that may sound comfortable. However, in the context of martial arts training, that idea is well known as nothing more than an obstacle to learning. A well known martial arts master heard this and laughed. He said Confucius knew better than to say such silly things. When asked where exactly did Confucius say this, the instructor who used the quote regularly refused to answer. As a point of information, correct instruction is the idea that the attacker (or competitor) is not the true enemy, but the true enemy lies within. Identifying and defeating this enemy is the point of martial arts training. Therefore, through indirect examination, one might utilize the writings of the masters of the given art or other masters whom you know and trust. (Examples of some of these classic texts and writings can be found in the library of the Westchester Aikido Blog, which can be entered via the Bulletin Board/Blog link at the bottom of the previous page.) If you persist in this process, you should be able to develop some idea of the teacher’s level of understanding over time, and also learn the art in more depth.
An instructor may not know everything, but they should be sincere if they err and show a willingness to learn from their mistakes. They should also appreciate your diligence and effort in learning. In the case of this friend, he examined two teachers. It took 3 classes over 4 weeks to establish the first instructor had very serious character flaws. He evaluated the next teacher within 20 minutes. While he could not see what either teacher was doing directly in their technique, he was able to establish definitively that neither one was an appropriate instructor and so saved himself 15 years of training in the wrong place.
Direct perception is always best, but in the event you cannot see definitively what is going on (which will be true in most cases) the second approach is an important alternative. True, it requires work, and one must let go of their excitement over starting something new, but you will wind up saving a great deal more effort by avoiding training for untold years in the wrong place, only to find a need to begin anew.