Klarinet Archive - Posting 000395.txt from 2001/03
From: Bilwright@-----.net (William Wright)
Subj: Re: [kl] band rivals
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:21:46 -0500
<><> I wrote:
Example: we discussed whether a school can take a student's money and
then say, "You aren't as good (by this school's definition) as some of
the other students this year, and therefore you can't take the class or
ensemble that you requested (which may or may not be required for
graduation)."
<><> Roger Garrett wrote:
Do you mean public school or college?
In this particular example, the Klarinet list was discussing
upper-level music schools and colleges, and one aspect of the discussion
was: if a school accepts money, what is their obligation if the
student doesn't excel in competitions?
<><> I wrote:
I agree that you must draw the line somewhere. =A0 A really terrible
musician shouldn't be allowed to ruin everyone else's education. =A0 But
I have perceived (in some conversations here) an attitude that the best
educational facilities should be reserved for the best musicians alone
and that nothing else is more important than finding the best musicians,
and the only way to do it is by competition.
<><> Roger Garrett wrote:
There are attitudes like this in some institutions.
I think everyone agrees that there should be one or more schools
for the gifted (in any subject, not just music). But what caused me to
post that "this sickens me" is when this attitude reaches down into
general education, which includes liberal arts colleges as well as
primary/middle/high schools.
<><> Roger Garrett wrote:
Whatever the fundamental goal is, it shouldn't result in paranoia and
perpetual anxiety - I agree.
But look at some of the posts on this list. NothingToHide's
original post showed clear signs of this happening.
NothingToHide deserves the highest praise for having gone in the
other direction.
But my statement is that music (and other arts) students are pushed
in the wrong direction too often.
I believe I posted a few months ago how, even in middle school, my
daughter was being hounded by an "excel or you fail" graphic arts
teacher. Graphic arts is a particularly poor place for this attitude
because (unlike music) graphic arts is a solo activity. [music
includes solos, but I'm sure you understand what I mean] If one
student doesn't harmonize colors properly, this doesn't stop the next
student from performing magnificently. In the end, my daughter chose
chorus as a replacement, and that's fine by us. But the other side of
the coin is that my daughter enjoys drawing, and she was driven to the
edge by a teacher who put the "standard of excellence" principle above
the principle that art (of all kinds) is an opportunity to express
oneself and to enjoy doing so and to share the expression with other
persons.
There is *no way* that public middle school can be described as a
"school for the gifted." Yet the attitude filters down. Where does
it come from? Is it just that some teachers have distorted agendas?
Or does it, in fact, filter down from the more elite educational
facilities?
<><> Roger Garrett wrote:
>From my perspective, I would like the student to understand from the
outset that they will be striving for excellence and will be graded on
achievement. If excellence (learning objective?) is defined for the age
level and then the evaluation of that student's progress toward the
learning objective can be documented, the system works well - without
having weekly challenges.
Roger, there is no way that I'm going to argue against *minimum
standards*, and there's no way that I'm going to argue against asking
students to *strive*.
But please take a close look at situations where "excellence"
begins to replace "minimum standard" and "sincere effort".
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
