Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Easing Pressure on Students Bares Ethnic Divide

I almost spit up my drink because there is so much truth in that statement. Poor Brown!

I read the local news coverage on the music program and it's my understanding that ALL students grade 4-8 in ALL musical ensembles (which included large bands and orchestras for all comers as well as smaller auditioned groups) were being asked to audition each piece for each concert. In other words, your child who took up violin 2 months ago and joined general "orchestra" would have to sit out a concert if he/she was not up to snuff. I get the impression this was happening because the general "orchestra" had a lot of high-level players already by grades 4 and 5 due to parents beginning private lessons early, and was largely able to play hard pieces. So, parental pressure and possibly music teacher preference was to sit out the kids who can't keep up. (Let's not let the amateurs "spoil" what the rest of our advanced kids can do...) But tell me, where do those kids go if they or their parents didn't feel like starting Suzuki at 3 and they now want to play in a large group? I may have this wrong. I had to read between the lines somewhat. There was also some discussion of elimination of a chamber music group that I could not quite follow. ETA: Apparently the chamber music practice was moved to after school, causing objections. Also, in the district, all students take choir, orchestra, or band in upper elementary.

I can see where the superintendent is coming from. Something tells me there is a happy medium here. We can go from requiring all kids to try out to not having any place for the advanced kids to shine.

My district has an excellent music program. All kids are required to take music (band, orchestra, choir) in 4-6th grades. And in these grades there is usually only one ensemble but the more advanced kids might have a solo. And there is district honors & state honors programs which many of the top kids make. In higher grades there are levels of band/orchestra/choir. Everyone who is in band/orchestra/choir get to perform at all concerts. Band takes in anyone who wants even if they have never played an instrument before (even in H.S.). But you do have to try out to get first chair, or into the higher level band.

Our district is somewhat similar. The first two years of ensemble music, there is just one orchestra and one band for everyone. Advanced kids often either pick up another instrument, or go to an ensemble outside of school. In later grades there are multiple ensembles catering to students at different levels. But within each ensemble, all kids can play all pieces (unless one's instrument is not needed in a piece, of course).

Private lessons and early start definitely give a kid an advantage. It's the same with parents who read to their babies, find "academically oriented" preschools, help with homework, get private tutors, or send kids to Philips Exeter instead of the public high school down the street.

I want to say that the obvious answer is to just set up another orchestra for the kids who started playing "late" at ages 8 or 9. But, that's not the real problem, is it?

On the one hand, I can see the point made by the Suzuki-at-age-3 parents. On the other hand...Suzuki at age 3? I wonder how many of this stuff is designed around IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL! application fodder for fulfilling the "pointy-yet-all-around-achiever" requirement.

And yet, competition for top-tier schools is insane and discriminatory in a large number of ways (legacies, athletes, children of the powerful and famous, minorities, foreign/out-of-state students who pay much more at public colleges, big-donor kids, famous kids...), so parents without one of these hooks are probably trying to help their kids get an advantage (as defined by the parents). And the economy is a mess, so people are stressed. Add it up and you get behavior akin to a siege mentality.

Ick. Personally, I prefer the kind of system where everyone takes ONE exam which is the SAME exam administered at the SAME TIME and university admissions are driven by points on said exam. Prince William had to get enough points on his A-levels to get into his desired program at St. Andrews, and that was that.

But a system like that would be way too transparent for the United States and way too impervious to gaming and we can't have that, because if we did, we couldn't discriminate have a "diverse" student body, so we need to make up reasons about how transparent admissions systems are anathema to American education.

And so we pile on the homework and the activities and the pressure, starting at age 3 in some cases, and wonder why 15-year-olds get inspired to step in front of trains. And when people like me make this complaint, we're seen as making trouble or being too cynical. And when another teenager kills himself, the "solution" is to bring in "counselors" and "the right to squeak." No one seems to want to address the real, fundamental problems here, which all derive from pervasive and very serious inequality in American society (including college admissions).

This is absolutely true.

Actually this is something that many people have mentioned. parents all want to give their kids a leg up. Middle class/upper middle class parents do so by helping their kids jump through every hoop the college admissions office prepares. Whereas kids from rich families or legacy kids just walk around the hoops and get in.

But also want to add that my daughter did not start Suzuki at age 3. She started piano and violin at age 5.5, upon strong request from herself. (She had been bugging me for lessons since she was 4.) Then she got in our community middle school orchestra in 1st grade. She got in our community advanced middle school orchestra in 2nd grade. She got in our state middle school orchestra at 3rd grade. Instrumental music starts at her school in 5th grade, and she had been begging me to ask the school to let her be exempted. But of course the school said no. So she sits there and watches the teacher tells the other kids "this is a bow, and this is how you hold a violin." So there is a real need for differentiation in music, the trick is always about the balance.

But there are disadvantages to that one test system as well. Countries like Korea that use that system have even higher levels of teenager suicide than the US. The stress put on testing for that one test becomes the most important thing for most teenagers. And when they fail their one chance? And doing well on one test isn't really a good indicator for how well a student will do in college. And what to those kids who are diligent, but don't do so well on standardized tests? (I have one of those who only has one more semester of college.)

The A level's aren't exactly the same as ONE test taken at ONE time. You do get to specialize in subjects, and while they are only given once a year you can re-take them the next year. They are more like HUGE final exams more than college admissions tests.

I do realize the US System needs a better system. But I don't think making college based on one test a good one.

The choice seems to be get stressed about an exam you'll be taking in 6-9 months, with a complete understanding of the university admissions requirements vs. constant stress from an age as early as 5 coupled with a college admissions process that's opaque . The lack of transparency adds to the problem here.

I'll take the A-level/Irish Leaving Cert./French Bac./etc. approach any day over that. No need for resume-building activities, and no need to be pointy and well-rounded at the same time. Just one exam (well, series of exams). Everyone takes the same one, and everyone is held to the same standards (though the UK seems to have started an interview process; I don't know a lot about it, but am not sure if it's a good idea?).

Life involves stress. There's no way around that and no way around exam stress and college admissions stress. But that doesn't mean that we have to go out of our way to pretend we're being meritocratic when we're not. As you noted, in other countries, you can take the exit exam again. I know a lot of people who did this. In Europe, it's not a big deal. If it is in other countries, that's a societal problem, not a problem with the admissions system.

Saying this clearly: a huge driver of the pressure in this country is the opaque and discriminatory system used by college admissions committees and the pervasive inequality in our society.

A perfectly normal and resaonable system, IMO, and one I support. Isn't this part of why we have first, second, and third parts? (Not sure how common third parts are, but I seem to recall third sections in my band.) I also support what we have where I live--one level of musical group in elementary (4 and 5) with multiple levels in middle school. You audition for higher-level ensembles. I suppose it's possible some kids are asked not to play in some of these at times if not prepared (never heard ofit, but could be). But there is always some kind of performance opportunity for anyone who wants to play or sing.

Trust me, there are oodles of higher-level music opportunities in the area in question. If talented kids want opportunities, they have them.

The British system I could get behind. The British system (don't know anything about French & Irish) is more like getting to choose what AP Classes (3-5) you are interested in after you pass a basic H.S level (the GCSE's). Then taking these classes for 2 years, taking standardized tests on them. University admission is only based on the A level results, you could compare this more to getting in based only on your AP Tests grades.

But many Asian countries it's ONE exam for everyone on ONE day, and you have ONE shot at it. You don't make the cut you don't go to university. Student are in cram school for that one test from the time they are very very young. They are just as stressed at US students perhaps maybe more. Just making entrance the result of a single test doesn't make it less stressful for the kids. It's not just stress for one year, it's stress for most of childhood.