<p>^^^^ agreed</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would be called sarcasm. Around here, I think there may be MORE pressure put on by the band and chorus people than by many of the coaches. My oldest sister played the french horn in the band and she was a GOOD softball player. She was told that her grade would be significantly lowered one time if she missed a band practice for a softball game. That sounds fair, right???</p>
<p>Many people not associated with athletics tend to believe that athletes have the upper hand in everything. They think that athletes have cushy lifestyles. They couldn’t be further from the truth.</p>
<p>It’s called making a choice. These are conversations that need to be held prior to the beginning of any school year with the appropriate teachers/coaches, and to get their policy in writing as to the consequences. Practice is part of the grade… probably says so in the grading policy upfront. Very, very few students ever participate in both a sport and a music class without ever a conflict. They have to decide what they’re willing to do. If every music student only missed ‘one’ band practice, exactly which day are they going to have everyone there? Music teachers have to allot for student illnesses interferring with rehearsals, also. That, they can’t do anything about and have to hope a student misses as few classes/rehearsals/lessons as possible. There have to be consequences for absences not related to illness… what else are they going to be? </p>
<p>Where has anyone on this board said that athletes have the upper hand in everything? Or that they have cushy lifestyles?</p>
<p>I will say that in our district, athletes do have the upper hand in budgeted funds, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How bout in class!!! Remember it is an ACADEMIC CLASS. They don’t play softball games at 8AM on a weekday in March… just isn’t happening</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s been stated numerous times here and elsewhere. A lot of people are jealous of the athletic departments because “they get whatever they want.” That just isn’t the case most places.</p>
<p>Our music directors make it clear at the beginning of the year the dates of additional attendance. Also, when concerts are upcoming, additional practices are needed because they have to go through the whole concert schedule in a dress rehearsal. You can’t do this during the regular daytime class schedule because you don’t have all your bands in the same period. You can’t tell a kid he has to miss spanish class because he’s needed in the auditorium for sound check. Sound and light checks need to be done, often in auditoriums that are not available during the school day due to other classes utilizing its space. </p>
<p>I think you’re projecting when you say a lot of people are jealous because the athletes get whatever they want. But as long as you brought it up, both music departments and athletics departments will always have a wish list of things they’d like to have, so no one ever gets whatever they want. Tax payers make sure of that.</p>
<p>Frankly, our athletic department has been pining for an artificial turf for several years now (we HAVE to have it because THREE other schools in our conference have them). I was initially opposed to it because I felt other things were a priority for our district’s budget… like not having class sizes so large that students were using cafeteria trays in some classrooms for desks. With a newer school board, some of those overcrowding issues have been addressed, so I will willingly support a tax referendum to fund a artificial turf.</p>
<p>I don’t think people are jealous of athletics; they think academics and all the reasonable resources that should be available should be the priority in budgets. Honestly, what kind of skewed thinking is it when classes are so large that students use cafeteria trays for desks, but the athletic department can’t understand why the community votes down a referendum that would provide artificial turf?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What kind of uproar would you expect if a coach decided his players HAD to be at practice for a big game the night of a band concert? Somehow I don’t think that one would fly, do you?</p>
<p>Then why is it any different for an athlete to have to miss an athletic competition for a band practice?</p>
<p>Remember-- it’s all about choices…</p>
<p>You’re assuming that it’s ‘just a band practice’. How do you know whether or no that teacher has planned something for that time that could be significant to students who miss? And no it wouldn’t fly because a coach can’t demand a player be at a practice at the detriment of an academic class, no matter what that class is (could even be a mandatory field trip for a non-music class).</p>
<p>Again, students need to clarify this up front, at the beginning of the school year or beginning of their sport season, with their teacher or coach. If neither one is willing to bend, then that student has to live with the consequences, or drop one of their classes/activities in order to fulfill their obligation 100% to the other. </p>
<p>And again, we’re talking about an academic requirement here. That’s why it’s different. Like it or not, music programs cannot run solely during regular class periods - it would kind of defeat the purpose of having a music program if it isn’t appropriately carried out to its fullest, which with music, is demonstrated during concerts. I don’t know a school out there with a solid music program that never meets outside of the regular school day period from time to time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Band is considered to be both an Academic Class and an Extra curricular activity. That is wrong. It can’t be both. It has to be one or the other. Whatever it decides to be, it has to follow those rules.</p>
<p>I do not know of a single academic class outside of music that REQUIRES meetings 3-4 times per week outside of the classroom. Can you?</p>
<p>At our school now if a conflict with two or more activities like that could not be resolved by the sponsors, it would be taken to the principal. A couple years ago the band had to do without 3 or 4 members because the principal allowed the students to choose (without penalty) and they went to the football game instead of the band competition. As you can imagine, that went over well-- NOT.</p>
<p>If band wants to have absurd requirements (meeting several times per week outside of class is absurd) then it should be strictly EC, not an academic class.</p>
<p>It is wrong to pressure students with a grade to force them to come to something outside of class time. No other class does it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because no other class has, as part of its curriculum, the need to perform during hours that are not during the regular school period. </p>
<p>If you don’t like it and can’t handle the conflicts, then don’t do it. </p>
<p>The reality is, our society values the academic opportunities available to band; our communities would shake their heads in confusion at going to a football game without the marching band being there or the pep band being at basketball games; what would parades be without a marching band; who would sing at special occasions and graduations? These levels of performance cannot be undertaken without the time commitment needed during the regular class day, and extra rehearsals as needed for performances that don’t take place in their classroom.</p>
<p>At our school, it is considered an academic class. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s because no other academic classes have as part of their curriculum the requirement to demonstrate the skills they’ve learned in manners that are not available during regular school hours (parades, football games, concerts). Every other academic class can grade its students on material produced and/or tested on in the classroom.</p>
<p>Why wouldn’t schools want to encourage as many kids as possible to be involved in their music programs when the studies show the correlation between increased academic achievement and music involvement? It can’t be an 80-90% commitment; it has to be 100%. No other academic teacher would accept anything less.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, we do have misplaced priorities in this country. We do build high schools that are glorified country clubs and temples for extra-curricular activities. New schools in the suburbs are often build with baseball stadiums that would bring out the envy of farm teams. Professional soccer teams lease the pitches of high schools because the facilities are better than their own. And, at the same time, we turn our backs to basic education, especially in the urban school districts where half our students do not graduate or receive a decent education. </p>
<p>We are so comsumed about education being fun (or not boring as some write) that we think it is best to concentrate on anything but solid academics. As we shorten the school day and the school years, we keep adding activities to keep the “fun factor” high. Is there a doubt that yound minds prefer to play than to study and learn? </p>
<p>Sports and other activities are important, but we do not have enough hours to fit them all in, and choices have to be made. Young people are robbed of an education as they “promised” potential riches in sports. How many high school students are LIED into believing that they could play in the NCAA, let alone the NFL, the NBA, or in the baseball leagues. How many do actually succeed? How many find themselves on the street without much of an education? </p>
<p>What our country does best is making excuses for having allowed our education system to slip in the hands of apologists and people who want more for less.</p>
<p>^^^^ Is it plausible that if there were more opportunities for meaningful ECs in urban schools (AND a supportive environment at home), the urban dropout rate might not be so high?..I’ve always thought meaningful ECs were the carrots that kept kids in school. As long as kids CAN drop out, they will. You make a good point that many (not all) kids would prefer to play than study. Seems the path for school success, or lack of success, is established long before hight school. School-related ECs don’t take over until middle school, at the earliest.</p>
<p>If you’re implying that coaches/the school “promises potential riches in sports”, I think you’re mistaken. Most of the time these unrealistic dreams are self-imposed. In my experience, h.s. coaches try to avoid such foolishness! </p>
<p>Is there an educational model that you would have us emulate, Xig?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If a kid doesn’t want to do it, then s/he won’t do it. Plain and simple. Throwing money at the problem sure seems to solve a lot. 
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, they’re being lied to by their PARENTS half the time. Most high school coaches know what the chances really are…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why should they be allowed to have that as a part of the curriculum then? Is that a part of the state test? Every other academic class has to have a curriculum that teaches to a test. Why not band or chorus? </p>
<p>Look, you probably think I absolutely hate band and chorus. That’s the truth I do. But I don’t see it necessarily as a bad thing to have in the school. </p>
<p>I just don’t like the attitude portrayed by the band directors that I’ve known both at the high school and college level. They think the world revolves around them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So that makes it OK for you to overgeneralize for every other music program? I’m sure glad that every parent who has had encounters with coaches who had the same attitude didn’t make the same generalizations about athletics. The truth is, there are both phenomenal coaches and remarkable music teachers that touch lives in ways you and I will never know; and there are not so great ones (in both fields) who stir the pot wherever they go. I’m sorry that you hate band and chorus; I’m sorry that you hate anything that has so much potential to be such a positive influence on so many students and create such a sense of community within a school while increasing a student’s academic potential. </p>
<p>By the way, what’s the point of having band and chorus if you stop teaching before you get to the final product, which is a concert? Concerts are a test (BTW, state tests do not test every academic subject so you can’t use that as an excuse to hold standards to music programs that other programs are not held to). That would be like having a newspaper class that doesn’t produce school newspapers, which is actually a good example, because I know that those reporters don’t get every story in every paper during regular school hours. They are required to attend events after regular school hours to cover their stories and take pictures; same could be said about yearbook.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry to blow your example, but those would be called “homework assignments.” Last I checked, several other classes have those too.</p>
<p>hops_scout, I think what she meant was not the time involved writing the story, but the <em>extended</em> time involved attending the event – to get the photos, narrative, even interviews. (I have no dog in this fight, as my D’s did not do journalism, but I can vouch for the enormous time investment before, during, after school + entire weekends into the wee hours, for those with significant positions on serious, well-written high school newspapers.)</p>
<p>My only wish is that every student involved in e.c.'s, and parent with children involved in e.c.'s, get some balanced views on the broader e.c. universe. I’ve never personally heard/overheard parents say or imply that a non-athletic e.c. is “more” time-demanding than athletics, but I have often heard the reverse. Typically, I hear, “Oh, they [athletes] just have to sacrifice SO…MUCH.” Well, gee, so do students who <em>choose</em> (just like athletes <em>choose</em>) to do other serious e.c.'s. I can’t speak for marching band. But I can tell you that both of my D’s, who had several performing art activities outside & inside of school, spent 16-20 hrs/week on them, outside of competitions, which were a separate matter & took 1-5 days, depending on the event & location, which could include across the country. They were often asked to perform for visiting dignitaries at school, & in so doing missed classes & social, fun-type student activities. I think sports get more press & more informal publicity, which I don’t resent & I understand why that’s true. (Many reasons.)</p>
<p>O/T, but I notice on the “social lives” thread, that students who weighed in shared their demanding activity schedules. What I found interesting is that what seemed to get sacrificed was not the social life but the studies. (The e.c.'s, well, they had time for those, & the socializing. But studies got “5 minutes.”) I’m still trying to get my mind around that. Sorry for the temporary hijack.</p>
<p>Post #71 says: “Seems the path for school success, or lack of success, is established long before hight school.” I agree with you Beil, to some degree.
Very often those teetering on the brink can be ’ saved’ by caring role models, ie: coaches, band/chorus directors, teachers, administrators. Those teetering kids are worth the time and effort because once they’re lost to violence, drugs, gangs…they are never (well, rarely) going to be productive members of society.</p>
<p>I hate to see the schools blamed for all of society’s woes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because they are paid an extra stipend for coaching. My husband, when we dated and got married, was a highschool football and baseball coach (coached Thurman Thomas and won the state championship:D) Anyway, he was also a science teacher, he taught chemistry for years and then physical science. He was not certified as a phys ed instructor, he graduated with a double major in chemistry and secondary education, but many of the coaches were, and they were the ones who taught phys. ed. His teaching salary was abyssmal, but by coaching 2 sports, he made a pretty decent living. Of course, he worked 7 days a week, often leaving the house at 5:30 in the morning and returning after 10:00, Monday thru Friday, so I guess if you computed what his hourly pay was, it would have been less that minimum wage. But, the love he had for the kids and for the sport made it totally worthwhile for him. He only gave it up after we were married and had a child, the time committment meant that I was alone all the time, and he had no time to be a dad (they call them “coach’s widows” for a reason), so he quit and is now uses that science degree in another business working 8-5.</p>
<p>In order to “coach” or be employed by a public school in Texas, you have to have a teaching certificate. I know this because my son’s position coach, after trying multiple times to get certified with alternative certification, couldn’t pass the test so he got the axe. He is now coaching at a private school where the rules are less stringent. You don’t have to be certified to teach or coach at private schools in Texas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is very true and it also shows the aboslute cluelessness of the UIL and the people responsible for education and high school sports in Texas. While the rules might make sense for sports that extremely school centric (such as football) it borders the ridiculous for sports where the highest level is played outside the schools and at the club level (such as soccer.) Many of the most successful coaches have been barred to continue coaching at public schools because of the lack of a teaching credential and have been replaced by well-meaning teachers who happen to think they could learn coaching a sport despite having never played it nor understand the first thing about it. The most unfortunate part is that this lack of knowledge of the game places high level athletes at risk of injuries during poorly designed physical exercises. </p>
<p>It is just typical that when it comes to public education, our system does not seem to worry about matching qualifications and job descriptions. </p>
<p>If the same people were in charge of the NFL, they woud require every head coach to have a degree in criminal justice or psychology.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for clarifying that, because it reminded me of another example. D2was involved for a couple of years with the video broadcasting curriculum at her high school (it was a business class elective). Part of their class requirements were attending various school events, from athletic games to concerts, to cover the events. They were either assigned to run a camera, or direct. I can’t tell you how many Friday nights she spent out on football fields with a camera, sometimes in cold, pouring rain. Why? Because if she didn’t, her grade would be impacted. It’s part of the class learning and the only way to complete it is outside of regular class hours.</p>
<p>What most people aren’t understanding is that before this you would only get credit for the first two years you took the sport and since you have to take four years of the four main core subjects and two years of a language you would have no room for any electives besides the required electives like health and speech and technology. Like at my school athletics are double blocked so that takes two out of my eight classes away and I would only be getting two credits where if I hadn’t done sports I would have eight.</p>