I taught real estate at the under grad level, twice, the first time was out of the book with experience, the second time was years later, used the book, but I had tons of experience. I'd have to admit, the second time around was much better for the students.
IMO, just having teaching experience doesn't qualify you to teach any subject.
Having experience in something doesn't make you a good teacher either.
A big problem is that the teachers or investors who decide they are qualified are the ones wanting to teach, just a bit of a conflict of interest there. Self declared experts.
And. I've not seen many, with a combination of skills that come close to being qualified, IMO. I will say that J. Scott probably is, as it's my understanding that he was a teacher, has his Masters and has sufficient RE experience. To my knowledge, he's the only one on BP, beside our attorneys who could obviously tackle RE 101. Okay, I'll be hypocritical and include myself, but I don't have any intention of teaching, at least not in this arena as a paid instructor.
Consider what state real estate commissions may require for agent's education, usually a master's degree and so many years as a broker, and then it may still be on a probationary basis, reviewed, examined as well as structured as to content. There is a reason for that!
What we get as RE gurus or instructors or mentors are lose cannons from an educational point of view. I have seen comments by some posting here that have just given some really bad advice as they just don't have the depth of knowledge in what they decide to advise on or get into, they lack experience to draft a course that really fits the audience here, a national (international) forum. What might be done in Texas can't be done in GA and they are simply unaware.
Then, we get teachers who have gained some questionable knowledge on the surface, perhaps they buy into some guru strategy, inject some experience and decide they have a marketable product and aspects (not to mention compliance issues and changes that pop up constantly) that poison or taint their interpretations.
That's my issue is that gurus give advice and amateur instructors teach information that ranges from bad to dangerous.
It really depends on the subject matter too, but I see too many biting off more than they should chew.
I've been asked to do the same thing in several areas, problem is, what I know is not 100% in every state, I just feel like I shouldn't be putting anything out that someone in NM gets a hold of and then gets hammered for some off the wall, unusual transaction restriction they may have adopted. So, the topic has to be selected with great care. Teaching RE is very close to teaching law in many areas.
I just reviewed a "book" by a member who wants to sell his product. It was very narrow information, it gave the basics, it lacked real world applications but it was good. I just have a feeling he was expecting something like $129.95, he never said, in reality my opinion is was worth maybe $12.95, there was nothing really new that a couple hours at the courthouse couldn't be learned. It was a good topic and I hope he touches it up a bit and puts it out there.
I'd say learn the basics, financing rules, teach them how to look things up and how to think. There is no strategy that is so unique or informative or secretive that someone with a bit of creative thought, one with logical thinking attributes could not figure out having a good command of basic real estate practices.
Now, I'll yield to marketing, yellow letters, advancing and promoting yourself, phone systems, the generic business stuff that is not really so much an issue in RE, or such hardly regulated areas. Howto line up work in a rehab, figure costs and such matters are on the business side, not so much to do with compliance. But if you get into strategies and putting deals together that fall into the transactional side, you better know your stuff.
Just IMO. :)