Advertise on ChoralNet
Do I give in or fight back?Date: August 25, 2010
I teach in a very large school with what has traditionally been a very strong Performing Arts program. Our school went to block scheduling several years ago (before I joined the team) and, quite honestly, implemented a fairly effective system. Music classes are on "mini blocks" for first and fourth block - meeting every day for 50 minutes each - we start and end the day ten minutes before/after the rest of the building. Second and third blocks meet every other day for 95 minutes.
For the first three or four years, English and Math were offered on mini's as well (which apparently was promised when they designed the initial block schedule) so that our students didn't have to give up a class in order to take band, choir or orchestra. Within the last two years they have taken away these other classes (due to enrollment and FTE's) and our music students are now having to give up two class blocks in order to take one class. This is especially tricky for the students participating in the advanced groups because they must be in the larger ensemble in order to participate in any select group, therefore giving up three blocks to take two classes. I have not known a program were students we able to be in the chamber/show/jazz choirs without supporting the larger choirs.
My questions are:
1) What are your thoughts on allowing the advanced students to only be in the select ensembles? Have you seen it before? How might it work without bloating egos and creating a "good" choir vs. "bad" choir? (I have worked with that mentality before and don't want to go back there!) I have never known it any other way, so I feel that I would be sacrificing much if I change my program to make it fit the current schedule.
2) Our parents and students are very frustrated with this situation, as is our department, because we are seeing great kids walk out the door (what does that say to all of the students we are trying to recruit). It has been a topic of concern for two years now, we've talked with departments, we've discussed it with administration without any change. So, do I give in? Say, "It is what it is - wish you could make it work... my hands are tied." Or, do I fight it, get the parents involved and risk shaking the boat... a lot.
What would you do or what have you done to fight for your students to be able to make it all work together? It's possible, right? I am feeling quite defeated and that is no way to start the year. :)
Thank you for your ideas! Replies (11): Threaded | Chronological
John Fohner on August 26, 2010 7:53am
This advice comes from someone who has been in more than his share of fights. Ask yourself, "Is this the hill I'm willing to die on?" In other words, "Am I willing to lose my job over this fight?" If you involve the parents and really start shaking the boat, it will be a long, difficult and unpleasant battle. You may win, i.e. the schedule will be changed, but also lose, as in your job. You can choose this course, just be ready psychologically for the nasty battle. You can also choose to make the best of the situation. Put on your happy face in public, be the good soldier, but also take consistent opportunity to lobby your administration, in private, of your students' needs. I think this second course will be better in the long run. You may have some years where your groups struggle, but I believe that eventually you can build an excellent program despite the scheduling flaws.
John Fohner
Mills River, North Carolina
on August 26, 2010 8:26am
Dear Andrea,
That is an extremely difficult situation. I read the response from John and think his points are excellent. In the end, it is your district and you know how they work, and if the battle would really be worth it.
We are on block scheduling at our school, but it is a very different block schedule than your school. However, I face many of the same challenges, because for the honors and international baccalaureate students, they cannot fit two ensembles in the school day. Many times, just to fit one ensemble in their schedule, they take summer school or online college courses. It is quite ridiculous and very unfair to the performning arts students who excel in academics. Therefore, I teach my advanced Chamber Singers during a zero period at 7am everyday so that those students can be in the larger performing ensemble in the regular school day schedule. If you don't think you can win the battle, you may need to get creative in your own scheduling by teaching a zero period or evening ensemble that is auditioned out of your large group. Hopefully your administration would support you in this if you need to go that direction.
I wish you all the best in dealing with a very difficult situation.
Sincerely,
Dana Alexander
on August 26, 2010 8:40am
I agree with John's comments. I am fighting a similar battle of scheduling conflicts that require me to share three students with band. What matters the most to me is that the kids stay in my program...one way or another. If that means I get them 50% of the time, that is better than 0%. I understand the policy that in order to be in the top ensemble, students must also be in the larger ensemble, but sometimes scheduling simply will not allow it. I have three choirs (beginning, intermediate, and advanced.) I would love to have the advanced students also in another ensemble to provide support and strength, but if I required it I would lose all my good singers. To me it is not worth it.
Scott Wickham
Lafayette, CO
on August 26, 2010 10:36am
Is it too naive to ask whether it would be possible to move Music off of the minis, so it runs in regular every-other-day 95-minute blocks like the other classes? It seems that would solve the 1-for-2 or 2-for-3 scheduling problem. I'm not a teacher so I don't know what other problems it would create.
Sincerely,
__Sharon Pedersen
on August 26, 2010 10:58am
Andrea, I can certainly understand your frustrations, particularly since you and your colleagues, parents, and students have utilized this schedule and setup for some time now to great success! But it may be the year to shift your thinking, at least temporarily, away from the logistical nightmare that you perceive this to be.
The best way we can fight for our students is to teach them. Whoever comes in the door, we teach. We teach better than we ever did before. And...even if our ensembles are not at the same level as they were at the end of last year, get your administrators and parents into your classroom, into rehearsals, and make sure they see and hear what you and your singers do. This is the best way to make certain that they see that whatever you are given, you make the most out of it.
I'm not saying you should not stand up for your feelings here. Make them known in a professional, appropriate way to your administration, then go on back to the choir room, and just teach. There will be complaints from parents and students, and you will hear it all. You will also feel the pinch of your program changing, but believe me, in the long run you will not be taking from your own and your students' own creative energies by staying mired in the problem. Instead, you will have taken what you have, and gone forward.
It could be that, at the end of the year, or graduation, or mid-winter concert, or some other culminating time of year, that those OUTSIDE of your program may realize that you could have done even MORE than the fabulous job you did if the schedule had permitted. But in the meantime, take what creativity you have and just teach. This isn't backing off or giving in. To my way of thinking, it is stepping forward and reaching up.
Sincerely,
Lynda Boltz
Vocal Music Educator
Raleigh NC
on August 26, 2010 5:22pm
I've been in similar situations at the university level (not identical, of course), and even in a situation in which students and parents and alumni all jumped in to try to save a superior program from being canceled, and one thing I can tell you is that with very, VERY few exceptions, the administrators always win. They are paid to make decisions, and whether those decisions are intelligent or not they stick. My predecessor here got into such a situation when he wanted to expand a good program into a unique and innovative program, and got turned down flat, so he and most of his staff resigned in protest, but it did them no good at all except for the personal satisfaction of telling the administrators where to go. And if that is the thing you feel most strongly about, and are willing to sacrifice your job for, then for heaven's sake DO it!
What struck me in reading your note was your insistence on forcing students to be in your large ensembles in order to qualify for your small and more select ensembles. Yes, I understand the reasoning behind that policy, but to be perfectly honest I have to point out that it's to benefit YOU and not to benefit your students. You say you've never been at a school that didn't have such a policy. I, on the other hand, have never been at a school that DID have such a policy, so please don't assume that it is universal and use "everybody does it" as an argument. And it certainly is not the policy at very large schools, where there are simply too many people to assign to different ensembles to try to enforce a policy that would automatically create scheduling problems that NOBODY needs to deal with! (At Indiana in the '70s the Choral Department assigned 800 singers or more to ensembles every semester, including all keyboard majors!)
You say you're worried about students perceiving "good" and "bad" choirs. Guess what; they already do!! It's always VERY clear that some ensembles are more selective and better than others, and it isn't ego to realize that you might be qualified to be in the better ensemble, just a realistic appraisal of our own abilities. I wouldn't worry about it. They'll get cut down to size--OR their self-image will be reinforced--at the next level.
And it is clearly this part of your policy that is on a direct collision course with an administration that does not understand and support it. So let me simply suggest that "give in" or "fight" are NOT your only choices. Your third choice, as others have mentioned, is to adapt. And if you look back through history, it is those institutions that have had the ability to adapt that have survived, perhaps not in their original form, but at least keeping many of their original goals and high standards.
When I came to this school, I took what my predecessor had done, what the university administration told me they wanted done, and what I was prepared to do, and I adapted the situation to what was possible and, quite honestly, what I could live with while maintaining my professional standards. Nobody got everything they wanted, but the program not only continued, it flourished until university politics got in the way and it got canceled. And that was a fight that I could not and did not win, so once again I adapted--and thanked God for tenure!!!
All the best,
John
on August 27, 2010 3:24am
My good friend John Howell makes many valid points.
But I disagree on one of them . . .
Having your students required to be in large ensembles to be eligible for select madrigal/show/jazz is not just for the director. Having taught 15 years of HS and now 8 in University - the difference is that at the High School level, I wanted to make sure a student in my vocal jazz group didn't just get a vocal jazz experience in their HS years. I wanted them to also have a well-rounded musical pallette - one that my concert choir would better provide. This is not a knock on Vocal jazz, which I love - it's simply a music educator's philosophy that one's students in a HS be exposed to the gamut musically (renaissance to 21st century).
Although it can be argued that Univ. students should have the same well-rounded experience, they are older - they are paying for their education, and they have a right to choose in which part of the musical spectrum they will participate (which works in tandem with their ability level - successfully completing whatever auditions, etc)
Now - just having made that point - when I first read your situation, I was thinking maybe waiving the 2-ensemble rule should be an option to consider. For the reason I just gave, it's not something I'd want - but we live in a real world. I've taught in 3 countries, had everything from 2 rehearsals a week 42 minutes, to 5 days a week 55 minutes over the years. Flexibility is the buzz word. Plus, in 3 of my schools, the small ensembles were outside of the normal school day - which would alleviate one problem, but get you into conflicts with sports, work, etc. (that is, if you have the "good" kids in your choirs, which I hope you do . . .)
Gary
on August 27, 2010 10:09am
Thanks for the thoughts, Gary. I did say I understood the rationale for the multi-participation policy, and I really do. My only problem with it at the college level is that students are so weighed down with required courses they often have trouble scheduling ONE ensemble, and that's exactly the problem Andrea brought up in the first place. And block scheduling just makes a bad situation impossible.
But it does speak to a slightly different matter that might be worth discussion. At what level can and should we drop the insistence on broad training and allow students to specialize in areas of their own special interests? I had one student from a small high school in Kentucky with a very good broad background, even though that school had only one choir. But that choir performed a wide variety of repertoire up to and including "show" material, which is one ideal way to approach the question.
I've also had students who never did audition for my college show ensemble, because they had been overworked in highschool show choir and were burned out and actually turned off to music, and that isn't good either.
For my own college show ensembles, my dual goals were to provide the best possible training in professional standards, expectations, and techniques for the few who might have the ambition to go on into entry-level entertainment jobs, and to provide a wonderful, memorable college experience for everyone else. And more than a few of those students have remained active in music, even if not professionally.
One of the colleges I applied to at one point had a pretty reasonable approach. They required all voice majors to sing in a large choir for their first one or maybe two years, before allowing them to choose specialized ensembles. But the important point, at least at the college level, is that if we take our responsibility to prepare our students for the "real world" seriously, we do have to provide them with the best possible basic training both as general singers and as more specialized singers, some of whom might actually have the talent and ambition to earn some money from their talent!
The important question is, of course, what level the more specialized basic training should be available. And I hope that no one will feel like arguing the simple fact that for the past century and more, the schools have been much too late to recognized the employment opportunities in commercial music, whether it's jazz, pop, rock, musical theater, studio recording, or whatever, and much too limited in serving the students whose talents and inclinations lie in those directions. We barred them from our ensembles because they didn't have "classical" voices, which has ALWAYS been a big mistake in my opinion.
All the best,
John
P.S. When I said that the policy was for the benefit of the director, I didn't really mean personally, but for the benefit of the program, keeping the better singers in the larger ensembles, but that STILL isn't necessarily for the benefit of the students themselves!
on August 28, 2010 11:16am
Andrea,
I have never heard of a program that requires students in select ensembles to be in larger ones also. If you were to not force students to be in both then all students who want to be in a select ensemble would be able to take the class.
on August 28, 2010 10:17pm
Just to make things even more murky, there was a high school band director less than an hour away from here who got into trouble for a similar but very different reason. He required all members of his concert and symphonic bands to be in the marching band! Now THAT was pretty clearly to build up his program, and there were a significant number of students who did not WANT to be in marching band.
What happened was that band parents got up in arms and went to the School Board to complain, and the School Board listened and ruled against both the band director AND the principal who had allowed him to make that rule. So it's always possible that what you feel is a reasonable and necessary rule can backfire on you if your students and their families don't agree with you. ESPECIALLY their families!!!
John
on August 29, 2010 11:49am
Just a quick note: The days of having students in multiple performing groups may be disappearing. This seems to be happening whether there is an attempt made to require participation in one group as a prerequisite to others or if such participation is voluntary. I was fortunate enough to be able to participate in band, concert choir, and string orchestra my senior year of high school. I don't think this would be possible today given the graduation requirements of most high schools.
As a parent I am committted to rasing all kinds of objections if a block schedule is ever proposed in my son's school. There is really no evidence, emprical or otherwise, that suggests any educational advantage to the block schedule. It is always dangerous for a staff member to be politically active in issues such as this, but parents should really pay attention to class schedules in the schools where their children attend. It is easy enough these days to do online research and see if their are any studies that show the advantage of the proposed schedule. I have watched too many outstanding arts programs slide into mediocrity (to be kind) after a new schedule was introduced.
|
Help support ChoralNet by buying via these links
|
