Klarinet Archive - Posting 001299.txt from 2000/10

From: Bilwright@-----.net (William Wright)
Subj: Re: [kl] A curricular issue
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:41:45 -0400

<><><> Bill Wright wrote:
It seems to me that this thread is focusing on an issue of basic
honesty. =A0 What did the school promise in exchange for the student's
money? Did they deliver?

<><> Roger Garrett wrote:
This answer was interesting to me. You are suggesting a correlation or
agreement on grades between the ensemble and lessons?

No, not if I understand your words correctly. I am arguing
exactly the opposite.
Let's be sure that we are discussing the same question, because I
see two possible questions here:

=3D=3DFirst=3D=3D An important function of higher education is to a=
llow
people to explore the possibilities more thoroughly after they've been
grounded in the basics. However a second function is to help people
'settle down' and to choose a specific area and to become as proficient
as possible in their chosen area. So long as these two purposes remain
on the horizon, conflict is inevitable. Should a student who is
declared in (say) percussion be allowed "walk on" for the purpose of
exploring (say) flute at the expense of another student who has already
declared his or her intent to be a flutist?

=3D=3DSecond=3D=3D If the percussionist is a generally superior per=
son in
every way and can outplay the declared flutist, as well as take the
flutist to the cleaners at the poker table and write better poetry and
outshine the flutist in every other way, should the percussionist be
allowed to displace the flutist simply on the basis of superior skill?

My reply to the first question is: Without a declared policy to
the contrary, accepting a student for a particular instrument is a
promise to offer a complete education in the instrument. Therefore a
declared student deserves priority. If a school is 'clever' with its
language and makes both promises ("We'll educate you in a particular
instrument, but we'll also allow you to explore every instrument"), then
the school was not honest when it offered enrollment.
And this is precisely the issue to which I was referring. You
can't analyze the conflict if you don't state at the beginning what
promise(s) the school made to potential students.
For example, what promises does Wesleyan School of Music make? If
you're asking "What promises do you think Wesleyan School of Music
*should* make?", my reply is that Wesleyan should promise priority to
the declared student and should give an honest fact-based description to
potential students of the chance that they won't be able to explore
everything.

My reply to the second question is similar, but once a student's
declaration had been accepted, I think that the emphasis has shifted in
a major way *away from* awarding classes on the basis of skill. As
someone else posted, if the student isn't meeting minimum standards, the
school must be straightforward and say so and ask the student to change
course. But if the student is meeting the minimum standard (receiving a
'passing grade', maintaining a sufficient 'score', or however the
minimum is described), then the walk-on should be denied.
Again, it comes down to what the school promised. Without a
declared policy to the contrary, accepting a student for a particular
instrument is a promise to offer a complete education -- even if the
student has little hope of becoming a virtuoso or even of becoming an
outstanding musician.

Cheers,
Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org