Who is qualified to teach?

We are all on a continuum.  If you "know more" than someone else you "can" teach it, by definition. At the same you can (and should) continue learning. However knowing "more" is only one of the prerequisites for the "ability" to teach, and the questions remain: how much "more" is wise or safe, what is the essence of the "ability" to teach and how does one acquire it.

My experiences in teaching (NOT tango) have been many and varied, and ALL have been extremely worthwhile both for me and the students (that's the feedback I got anyhow). I  started by being a "reader" for a physics class in college. That meant that I corrected and graded physics homework. I had only "written contact" with the students, but I learned a tremendous amount, and the experience made me do real well in my entry exam for grad school.

In grad school I was a TA (teaching assistant). The professor taught the class and  led the "lab hour".  It turned out that the professor, who undoubtedly knew a lot "more" than I did, had a very strong foreign accent and the students had real problems understanding her and the concepts being taught. So I would spend most of the lab hour re-teaching what the professor had (supposedly) taught previously. I also developed a very dynamic and entertaining teaching style to drive home important points, like jumping on tables, and asking them to move in specific ways so that they would later remember the concepts. Nobody had "taught me" these techniques, but the students loved them and they did generally very well in the tests. Also I got official praise by the department.  Again, I learned a tremendous amount about the subject matter as well.

At NASA with a PhD in Biophysics I found myself having to work more and more in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence. I could have (and some would argue "should have" gone back to school to get a degree in Computer Science). I chose instead to go to local universities (SF State, and UC Berkeley) and offer to teach classes in specific areas I was interested in and where I was starting to gain some expertise.
They gave me teaching slots where at first I was able to stay only 2 or 3 lectures "ahead" of the students... but, man did I learn fast! The motivation not to appear as a fool in front of the class and a genuine desire to explain the concepts made me really understand what I was talking about, and I did really well both as a teacher and back at NASA where my expertise became recognized even more. Was I originally "qualified" to teach? I am sure that one could have argued I was not.

Now back to tango. I recognize that in kinesthetic learning the teacher has to have the "concept" in his/her muscle memory, so one couldn't get away with learning it the night before to be able to teach it to a class, but how long is long enough to get a student started? 6 months? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? It depends on the movement to be taught, and it depends on the ability of the teacher to do it AND to actually teach it, as the two skills are different. Everybody can see the first, but the second is a lot harder to evaluate unless one takes the class. I have often learned more from less "renowned" teachers than from those who are known fort their performances. Sometimes the best performers have a hard time breaking down the move for beginners, but are very good at teaching other teachers or very advanced dancers.

So who is "qualified" to teach? Almost invariably, when someone "makes it official" that they will teach a class or a pre-milonga, many dancers who know them will groan and make sarcastic remarks about their readiness to do the job. I confess that I have had the same reaction in some cases, but I suspect that some of this stems for subtle envy for the courage these people have had to put themselves out there. "Courage or naivete?" some would say. Who cares?  I am glad that there is no "tango police" out there hauling away the bad performers, and "unqualified teachers". We are a dance marketplace where people have the chance and the right to sell their goods. Different people have different skills to offer, or none, as the case may be. Let the market decide. In this I am for extreme unregulated capitalism. Students will figure out who is good for them. Fortunately we don't do back flips in tango, so nobody gets hurt. Eventually one figures out that the 8 count basic taught by Johnny Newbeteach doesn't look quite the same as that taught by Gavito. So what? We can always go back and hone our style with new teachers of choice. But what about "bad habits"? ALL of dance is a continuous struggle to modify old habits... and ultimately somebody's "bad habit" becomes sombody else's "new stylistic decision".
That's how dance evolves.

There is a prayer attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, that says (paraphrased): "God, give me the power to change the things I can change, the patience to endure the ones I can't change, and the wisdom to know the difference". For the tango student (i.e. everybody), it should be "give me the power to select the teacher who will be good for me, the foresight to avoid the one who will waste my money, and the wisdom to know the difference...".  Most of all let's not forget that it's all for fun... right?