<p>
</p>
<p>UHH, if you read the article, it states that Texas is moving to a REQUIRED 4x4 core class schedule with the 4’s meaning 4 years of required English, Math, Science and Social Studies (i.e.history), so OBVIOUSLY they aren’t putting sports or recreation over those classes. They have upped the required years of academic subjects.</p>
<p>So, way to go Hi Wei, good luck trying to dispel the impression that you cannot read and comprehend an article.</p>
<p>firefly, in my Texas school district, PE/athletics is calculated in GPA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Doesn’t that depend entirely on your definitions of “far better scores” and “more rigor?” And, for that matter, on your definition of “expensive.”</p>
<p>While it is easy to define private schools as … non-public schools, it’s a lot harder to characterize them correctly. Catholic schools come in a wide range of sizes and flavors and serve students from our poorest inner-cities to wealthy suburbs. However, VERY few of them operate with budgets that surpass the local public schools. </p>
<p>It would perhaps if you were to define such differences and describe the communities the 5 schools are supposed to represent.</p>
<p>Our school district…sports get zero credit but marching band can be taken for a credit…go figure. One yr. of PE is required. More PE classes can be taken as electives if desired. PE is calculated in gpa. Must have at least 2.0 gpa to play sports. 4x4 schedule, 28 credits required for graduation.</p>
<p>We don’t get credit for sports, but the band and chorus do. And somehow they get to kick sports out for the gym in the afternoons and evenings almost whenever they want. They also kick PE out on concert days too. Set up in the morning during their class and then leave it all day.</p>
<p>It’s no wonder obesity in the youth is skyrocketing! </p>
<p>I believe our high school requires 4 years of English, two years of lab science, 3 years of math, American Government, American History, and 2 fine arts credits (art, music, foreign language) and one year of PE.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our h.s. highly values its sports teams, and we have very little obesity at our school. Since sports is a credit and graded class, the student MUST show up and participate everyday, or their grade suffers. Most of our Ivy-bound grads are scholar-athletes.</p>
<p>I personally believe that a school’s curriculum must have some form of maths, sciences, social studies, english, foreign language, fine arts, PE. Therefore, I think that band/choir/orchestra deserves full credit during the school year as then it fulfills the fine arts credit. Sports should certainly be allowed to replace PE credit but other than that, it seems a bit excessive to give athletes credit for playing a sport. School is traditionally a place to learn academics and anything that requires as much after-school time as sports should be second priority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see the difference between sports and music…</p>
<p>Well, music falls under the category of fine arts department, which just about every K-12 school in the country has. Like it or not, our society values fine arts and believes it’s worth the time and money for schools to provide this education. There are academic studies that show (as an example) that a strong background in music correlates to higher math abilities. Fine arts classes are open to everyone, not just those who make the team.</p>
<p>^what you just said about music can be said about sports except that it can fall under physical education. Sports requires a large amount of discipline which can not be taught in a class room. Sports also causes you to perform well under pressure and to think quickly.In my school about 7 people in the top 10 play at least and are very good at 2 sports. Also, in my school not everyone makes it into the music or fine arts department in general because there are tryouts there as just like in sports. Another thing is that some sports greatly drain you physically. Im sure people dont come home from the spanish club, the debate club, band practice, etc. exhausted and ready to collapse. Its nice to see that athletes who are not good enough to get recruited into colleges to have their involvement in a sport mean something</p>
<p>^ Like you said, sports drain you physically and sports tend to take up much more time (ex. there are much more football games vs. concerts and sports practices are much longer vs. a 30min~1hour private lesson on your instrument or whatnot) For this reason, I think schools avoid offering sports as it can be detrimental to a student’s academic performance. While sports do train your discipline, reflexes, and physical ability school has traditionally been a place to learn academics, not athletics. Also how would you get graded for playing a sport? For the most part, sports revolve around teamwork and I guess there can be instances where you can feel pressured by your teammates/coaches…which can, again, distract students from their main goal-academics.</p>
<p>We live in Texas and I am confused as to what actual impact this change will have on my son’s four year plan. His plan is already dictated by all of the legislative mandates we have. His schedule is currently:</p>
<p>4 years math (Alg II, PreCalc, Cal AB, BC or AP Stats)
4 years science (bio, chem, physics plus one more year of science)
4 years English (GT then AP)
4 years social studies (World Geography, AP World, AP US, 1 semester AP Gov and 1 semester AP Econ)
3 years German
3 1/2 years football
4 years choir
1 semester each speech, health & technology (probably AP Comp Sci)</p>
<p>Our district has changed the ranking scheme every year and for my son’s class all classes count toward rank with AP, Pre-AP and GT classes weighted. </p>
<p>People seem to be making critical comments about the Texas educational system but this seems like a difficult schedule to me. However, my kids have only gone to school in Texas so I’m not familiar with the requirements of other states. I am curious as to whether other states have all these mandates that we do as far as what classes the students must take.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s see… chorus… one hour a day in class, typically 2-3 hours per week outside of class, come concert time add 6-8 hours in rehearsal, concert is another 3-4 hours. That’s for like 6-10 songs. Add in the all-day competitions (how exactly do you tell who is better???)</p>
<p>Band… early bird jazz band, first period class 3 days per week, 3 hour practices twice a week, home football games, pep band at basketball games, all-day competitions (see above question) Band camp 3 weeks in the summer 8-12, 1-5</p>
<p>Football… 2-a-days… 8-10, 6-8 before school starts, practice 3-5:15 or 5:30 3 days a week, 3-4:30 on Thursdays, gameday Friday night, Saturday film 8:30-10</p>
<p>Would you like to back up your claim of detriment to academic performance?</p>
<p>Why should athletics be any different than playing a musical instrument?</p>
<p>How do you get graded in a music class? How is a “winner” determined in a music competition?</p>
<p>There’s no pressure what-so-ever about band or chorus…</p>
<p>Disclaimer: none of my kids were varsity athletes. We live in Texas. I used to be one of those who saw music/theater/debate as some how more worthy of academic credit than athletics, but now I’m not so sure. Team sports teach a kid a lot, kind of like music, drama and debate do.
For those of you from other states - before you criticize the option to give credit for athletics, make sure your home state requires the basic 4X4… four solid years of English, SS, science and math. No fair counting things like creative writing, journalism, newspaper, etc. No “integrated sciences”, no “business math”. In fact they have decided not to give credit for the (in my opinion valuable) Physical Sciences class that non-science kids used to take before chem or physics…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re kidding right? Most musicians refer to learning music akin to learning a foreign language (aside from the math skills). Good music programs/classes include some music history, music theory, music application, etc. How a teacher grades them depends on the teacher. Most teachers require papers or give tests that show how well students have learned to sight read and apply music, to notate within a composition, to analyze and evaluate music, and in more advanced classes they learn to arrange and compose on a staff. All these skills are based on the basics of music theory. </p>
<p>Winners are determined by music judges, often music educators themselves with experience in adjudicating. And if you insist that there’s no pressure in band or chorus, then you’re insinuating that the students don’t take ownership in honing their skills to the highest possible level. I can tell you story after story about music competitions where students were devastated because of some major goof-up that cost them a placing or recognition. Students are judged on concert/performance behavior, tone, difficulty of the piece, creativity of interpreting the piece and demonstrating that to judges. I’ve seen kids basically pass out from being under hot stage lights and giving every last ounce of breath support needed to finish a song, leaving them susceptible to fainting (I’ve even caught one I saw going down from a top riser). </p>
<p>I agree that team sports also teach kids a lot, like discipline, responsibility and teamwork, but so does music activities. The difference is the correlation between kids who participate in music (this includes kids who just take piano classes after school with a private teacher) and increased math abilities.</p>
<p>Don’t live in TX, just next door so kids from our area often compete with our neighbors in sports and music. Schools are on the 4x4 block plan which means a kid in athletics or music would find themselves graduating with 1/4 of all their hs credits in one of those fields. There were a few kids who were in both a sport and a music class (conflicts galore and lots of flack from coaches/music teachers) which meant something had to give (usually an AP or other elective that would be more meaningful, such as a 3rd year of a language). School district has just implemented a 90% attendance policy for the new school year that means a kid has to attend 90% of his/her class to get credit AND even excused absences (such as sport events or music competitions) would count against attendance. It is absurd how much power coaches and music teachers have when compared to academic subject teachers and how much parents let them get away with it. What would be the reaction if a science/history/math/English teacher demanded as much of a student as those people did? I had a band kid and an athlete and made it clear to them that the only reason they were allowed to spend so much of their hs credits in those fields were because they came in with hs credits taken in middle school.</p>
<p>To be fair to both sides, both music and athletics can be very intense. It usually depends on the school and program that you’re looking at. At my HS, our HS swim team is a total joke, anyone can join, and really doesn’t deserve much credit for anything. But the club team I swam on, however, is very intense, produces top area swimmers, and is the reason why my high school team was any good because club swimmers were on the team. </p>
<p>It’s the same with music. The middle school music program I came from was very intense, we won regional competitions, got highest ratings possible, played the highest high school level music, etc. But then I came to FL and while the HS band program I was in I would still consider “intense,” I considered it that for very different reasons. I felt like that our director wanted us to ONLY focus on music, rather than other classes, sports, EC’s, etc. It was a very cult-like environment that I felt many got sucked into way too deep. The bubble-like environment really kept kids away from achieving as much as they would have in other areas IMO. It wasn’t the music I didn’t enjoy, it was the environment I hated. Our director professed on how band kids were academically higher achieving and could get scholarships more easily than athletes, but this was all false. Band students hardly showed up in AP/honors classes, and those who did often quit. And our school was much better at sending kids off to colleges for sports than it was for music, despite a highly regarded program.</p>
<p>But the original thing I wanted to point out is that sports should get kids out of P.E. just as music does. It’s just stupid not to. You can’t tell me that marching out on a field is physically taxing. It was for many in my band program, but we had some of the most obese and unathletic kids at my school. The only reason I ever broke a sweat was because of the hot FL sun. I will admit, holding a baritone up for extended amounts of time at level, arms out, and whatnot did hurt a little after awhile, but I would consider high school swim practices more physically taxing. And that’s not saying much.</p>
<p>erhswimming - I agree that both can be very intense. Everything depends on the reputation of the program (has it had huge success in the past that puts additional stress on current students to maintain the reputation?) and the value that the community places on it.</p>
<p>Interesting experiences you’ve had… at our high school, swimming and water polo have been some of the most successful athletic teams in school history (more so than football, baseball and basketball). But our band and choral programs are also considered top notch.</p>
<p>I will say that in many recent years, as I look at our high school honor roll lists, NHS membership, and graduates with either magna, cumma or sum laude, there have usually been more music kids than athletes. There are a few that attempt to do both, but usually by junior year they have to choose between the two because of conflicts. I will also say that we have many students who would love to be in both band and choir, but due to block scheduling, cannot now.</p>
<p>Gosh, our students don’t get any credit for participating in a varsity sport so maybe those Texans should stop complaining about what they’re already getting! It’s hard everywhere to fit in all the requirements…my daughter had to drop orchestra to fit in all the academic courses she wanted to take PLUS PE (despite earning 4 varsity letters).</p>
<p>teriwtt, conversely, the year that my son was one of many 
valedictorians at our school (those with straight A’s in the most rigorous curriculum allowed are ranked 1), most were athletes, including son, a 3 sport varsity athlete - football, powerlifting, lacrosse, who is playing his sport for his college. Other athlete/valedictorians included a girl who went on to play division 1 volleyball, one who got a tennis scholarship at Penn-Wharton, and a division 1 golfer. There were also 3 cheerleaders and the captain of the drill team. </p>
<p>So, those “meathead” athletes and "ditzy’ cheerleaders can be motivated students as well.</p>
<p>And, btw, my son is completely tone deaf and, thankfully, has never learned to play an instrument, I might have had to kick him out of the house;)</p>