Donna,
I'm hesitant to get into this subject, and I hope you don't take this personally, but I think this is a bad idea.
The fighting arts, are just that ... fighting arts and should remain as such. There's too many strip mall karate schools that teach fluff already.
Tae Kwon Do has done itself a disservice by marketting itself the way it has. Now Tae-Bo is making Tae Kwon Do's already bad rep even worse by further removing substance from what was once a legitimate art so it could be marketted for "health benefits". If you watch the Tae-Bo advertisements on TV, their (except Blanks) technique sucks and it's probably because they're not interested in technique.
Tai Chi (aka Taiji) is another example. It became popular in China (later the world) when the Yang style was marketted (after being modified of course) as exercise. Prior to that, Yang style was still very close to the Chen style Taiji that Yang Luchan studied. Chen is very combative, as is Yang style (if you are a closed-door student of the Yang family), but most of the tai chi players you see couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. In fact, a lot of tai chi players will "correct" you if you ask about the art's combat aspects, by telling you that "tai chi is for exercise".
Aikido is yet another example. The Aikido that is prominent today is a far cry from the old, rough & tumble "pre-war" Aikido styles (ex. Yoshinkan), because Ueshiba became very spiritual in his later years. It's even further from the old Daito-ryu Aikibujutsu that Ueshiba had studied and later developed Aikido from. The martial content of Aikido has been removed over the years to make the art more spiritual (as opposed to making the art into a form of exercise), but the result is the same. When you remove the martial content, the essence of the fighting art is lost, and what is left is a shadow of the art.
The reason everyone isn't drawn to the fighting arts is because not everyone has what it takes to be a warrior. The path of the warrior is a tough one, that is not for everyone. Real fighting arts are too hard for the average person, including the Tae-Bo and "tai chi for health" people.
Donna, I believe from "talking" to you (on the forums) that you would not intentionally turn your class into another Tae-Bo or "Tai Chi for health". Keep in mind however, that if you teach through the YMCA, you will have to conform to their parameters and expectations. You'll get to choose the content of your class only as long as it conforms to what they want, and what they want is NOT fighting arts. If you conform to their parameters, then I too am concerned that some might get a false sense of security because they think that they're developing fighting skills.
If you want to expose more people to the FMA, something that I'd love to do too, then it should be done in a way that exposes them to the real art. Maybe the YMCA would let you do some demos. I'm sure your community has various public events throughout the year where you could do demos as well. Maybe have a public demo at your school and advertise it in the local press.
I've said my piece, and I know that you'll do whatever you think is best, so I'll close by wishing you the best of luck whatever you decide.
Sincerely,
Dave
P.S. I highly recommend that you find out how much control you will have over the class content before entering into an agreement with the YMCA.
[This message has been edited by Dave Fulton (edited 23 December 1999).]