courtesy of my blog: http://cjferrara.blogspot.com/
The other day I was "this" close to being on the radio. WNYC's Soundcheck had a debate pro- or against the TV show GLEE. I must say I had the best of hopes for Glee when it premiered last September. It was promising to do what High School Musical was supposed to do, except better. I also, after Music of the Heart and Mr. Holland's Opus, was looking forward to a filmed story about chorus for a change.
Well, I watched one and a half episodes and then came to the realization that this is not to be. That's more than I usually give a new TV show. If it doesn't impress me in the first episode, I'm out. Not only do I just not like the show, it's characters, it's story lines, or the overall tone of the show; but I'm actually bothered by the show as a choral director myself. Here's why:
a) it's not a Glee Club, it's a show choir. Over the past few years, the two have been synonymous, when they aren't. Glee Clubs are extra curricular singing groups, often featured by schools without music departments. Show choirs are choral groups that also feature choreography and staging. Sort of a musical without a plot. They do compete, as they do in the TV show, but the focus of every good show choir director I've met, from John Jacobson on down, is on the MUSIC first.
2) They never rehearse! Oh, they meet and run through polished performances, but where are the warm ups? The excercises? The last thing I witnessed of Glee was Mr. Scheuster handing out a choral arrangement of Kanye West's "Gold Digger" to his team.
Let's stop right there for a moment. A HIGH SCHOOL. Doing "Gold Digger." The first episode featured the champion Show choir doing "Rehab" by Amy Winehouse. What annoys me about this is that we're already seeing the trend of, "If they do it on the show, we want our chorus to do it." And they SHOULDN'T BE DOING THOSE SONGS IN SCHOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So where was I? Oh, yeah, Scheuster hands out Gold Digger to the team, and tells Finn to do the solo. And BAM, they launch into the finished performance. The montage features him going over choreography, but never practicing harmonies, or singing in any way.
This reinforces the image about show choir that I and my fellow directors have been battling all our careers. The image that this rehearsing thing is boring, why can't we just sing it? Also, the image that choral singing just comes out of you naturally. The Myth of Natural Talent. The idea of putting actual effort into a performance is beyond them. Why do I have to sing harmony, couldn't I just sing the melody, it would be easier. My students are doing "Man In The Mirror," and they're complaining that I'm teaching them back up harmonies. They whine to me, "We know the song already." This will soon be followed by, "On Glee, they never do scales, and arpeggios, and learning chords and stuff." Show Choir is NOT that easy, and frankly, I resent Glee implying that it is.
D) I also resent the implication that the freakin' Spanish Teacher can do it, and get more success than the kid-touching choir director who came before him. (I resent the kid-touching choir director, as well.)
Q) It's a philosophical difference extending out of the classic Nature/Nurture debate. Do we find the best singers and get them into show choir, or do we train all comers to become good singers? As John Jacobson once said, "We don't teach music so that we take great kids and make great music with them, we take great music and use it to make great kids." Then he wrote Pickle in the Tannenbaum (ISYN!)
The 6 or so kids who joined Glee Club initially on the show were the "talented ones," or at least the talented kids who came out for glee club. The search became, how do we find the talented students who are "closeted" and get them to join with us? I prefer to take anyone and everyone willing to work hard and learn, and I teach them to become better singers than they were. That's placing emphasis on making music as an activity for all humans, rather than the select few elites. The view of the "talented ones" making chorus makes choral singing seem like an elitist thing to do.
and &) If this show is supposed to highlight the beauty and glory of singing as a great thing to do. If it's supposed to encourage more kids to try out for choir and show choir.... WHY NOT HAVE SOME LIVE SINGING! You know what motivates a kid to sing with a chorus? Hearing the voices harmonize for the first time. Not hearing an auto-tuned, synthesized, studio produced, pop diva type of performance where every voice is mixed to perfection and these 6 people are clearly a 30 person choir with a full orchestra playing the music coming from that trumpet and guitar.
And besides that.... It's a stupid show!
Friday, May 14, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Why state testing is a joke.
courtesy of my blog: http://cjferrara.blogspot.com/
I recently developed a unique skill. I can solve a Rubik's cube. The Rubik's Cube was invented by Erno Rubik to be a challenge for his mathematics students. It was designed to be a test of spacial reasoning, knowledge of mathematics, and logical thinking. So one would believe that in order to solve it, I would go back to college, and study advanced mathematics, logic and spacial reasoning. I would train and study until I got to the genius level, then I would figure the puzzle out.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, host of Nova ScienceNOW, and rocket scientist, notoriously stayed behind backstage at the Daily Show after an interview feverishly trying to use his genius brain to solve a Rubik's cube that was part of his swag. He can do that, because he's smarter than I'll ever be.
In fact, the puzzle could, conceivably, be presented as a test of genius level thinking. It could be given statewide, and be the standard for which college level mathematics is assessed. And the fact that I can do it could be evidence that I am a genius. Except for one thing.
I didn't figure it out. I cheated. I went to a website called http://www.rubikssolver.com/ , I downloaded youtube videos that instruct you how to work out the solution. I memorized a few algorhythms; patterns of turn this, then that, then this; in order to move the colors the right way. Knowing the end result, and how the puzzle will be assessed: on speed and accuracy, I learned how to pass the test. WITHOUT LEARNING ANYTHING ABOUT MATH. or logic. or special reasoning. I was given the solution, not taught.
So I passed, but I'm really no smarter than before.
The ELA state exam is simply this: Read a few passages, and write an answer to a question about it. Hypothetically, if a 7th or 8th grade student learns to read, comprehend what he's reading, learns to write, and write clearly and eloquently with effective grammer, the ELA state exam should be no problem. Problem, in districts like mine, the students can't read. They write like they speak, and they don't speak well. What should happen is that they get remedial reading to get up to level. They should be held back until they do, and the pressure should be on getting the students to read at level, not on whether or not you will lose your job if they can't pass a test that's beyond where they are.
Instead, teachers try to get the kids to pass this exam. They use the rubric for grading the ELA as a curriculum, and instruct the kids, not on how to write, but on how to write a successful ELA essay that earns them the maximum amount of points. The students who succeed, don't read any better than they did before or understand what they read, or write any better, or more eloquently, but they become incredibly skilled at passing this particular test. Just as I'm not a genius at math, just incredibly skilled at solving a Rubik's Cube.
In my particular school, easily half of the students should fail miserably every quarter. But they don't because to fail half of our students would get is cited by the state, lose us funding, have the school shut down, and we lose our jobs. So instead of doing what is educationally most sound for them, we forgo that and just try to get them through this year, catching up as much as we can.
That's why state exams are BS, and schools should be allowed to do their job rather than be placed in a position where they have to save their jobs.
I recently developed a unique skill. I can solve a Rubik's cube. The Rubik's Cube was invented by Erno Rubik to be a challenge for his mathematics students. It was designed to be a test of spacial reasoning, knowledge of mathematics, and logical thinking. So one would believe that in order to solve it, I would go back to college, and study advanced mathematics, logic and spacial reasoning. I would train and study until I got to the genius level, then I would figure the puzzle out.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, host of Nova ScienceNOW, and rocket scientist, notoriously stayed behind backstage at the Daily Show after an interview feverishly trying to use his genius brain to solve a Rubik's cube that was part of his swag. He can do that, because he's smarter than I'll ever be.
In fact, the puzzle could, conceivably, be presented as a test of genius level thinking. It could be given statewide, and be the standard for which college level mathematics is assessed. And the fact that I can do it could be evidence that I am a genius. Except for one thing.
I didn't figure it out. I cheated. I went to a website called http://www.rubikssolver.com/ , I downloaded youtube videos that instruct you how to work out the solution. I memorized a few algorhythms; patterns of turn this, then that, then this; in order to move the colors the right way. Knowing the end result, and how the puzzle will be assessed: on speed and accuracy, I learned how to pass the test. WITHOUT LEARNING ANYTHING ABOUT MATH. or logic. or special reasoning. I was given the solution, not taught.
So I passed, but I'm really no smarter than before.
The ELA state exam is simply this: Read a few passages, and write an answer to a question about it. Hypothetically, if a 7th or 8th grade student learns to read, comprehend what he's reading, learns to write, and write clearly and eloquently with effective grammer, the ELA state exam should be no problem. Problem, in districts like mine, the students can't read. They write like they speak, and they don't speak well. What should happen is that they get remedial reading to get up to level. They should be held back until they do, and the pressure should be on getting the students to read at level, not on whether or not you will lose your job if they can't pass a test that's beyond where they are.
Instead, teachers try to get the kids to pass this exam. They use the rubric for grading the ELA as a curriculum, and instruct the kids, not on how to write, but on how to write a successful ELA essay that earns them the maximum amount of points. The students who succeed, don't read any better than they did before or understand what they read, or write any better, or more eloquently, but they become incredibly skilled at passing this particular test. Just as I'm not a genius at math, just incredibly skilled at solving a Rubik's Cube.
In my particular school, easily half of the students should fail miserably every quarter. But they don't because to fail half of our students would get is cited by the state, lose us funding, have the school shut down, and we lose our jobs. So instead of doing what is educationally most sound for them, we forgo that and just try to get them through this year, catching up as much as we can.
That's why state exams are BS, and schools should be allowed to do their job rather than be placed in a position where they have to save their jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)