84BDsop Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Oh dear, poor Southern California. Now they will have to start band booster programs like the rest of the country has for the past 20-30 years. Nah....booster programs have come around since Prop 13 back in the 70s. So the ACLU is forcing a choice between an "illegal" participation fee that helps to offset the cuts made to music programs since the 70s, and not having those fees and them losing the programs due to lack of funds from the schools...which - if present - would make those participation fees much less necessary.....got it. STUPID, but I got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 How does that AFFECT us? I would say, it might have an effect. A negative one. yep. fewer kids getting music education, fewer kids that will be interested down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 like free and reduced price lunch vs. full price lunch? Is it better to have a band that some people can participate in? Or a band that no people can participate in? Anyone with even an ounce of intelligence would realize that there is only one answer to this question (I know you said you would make the law differently, so I am not saying you do not have intelligence). when it comes to intelligence, politics, and the arts, 2 of the 3 clearly have no clue. here's a hint: it isn't the arts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POSITIVenrgy Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Oh dear, poor Southern California. Now they will have to start band booster programs like the rest of the country has for the past 20-30 years. Wow, that's a pretty shameful comment. I had a child in music programs from middle school through high school, (in SoCal). We paid plenty of fees... separate fees for marching band and concert band and drumline. We also had music boosters with the most amazing parents I had ever met. On top of all the fees, the boosters worked tirelessly to raise more $$, and gave more time and money so the kids could have their programs. And these schools were not remotely on the competitive radar. Music education for the kids was our motivation/goal. Thanks to all these activities, my child was introduced to DCI, and went on the march with his dream corps. Also.... while all these fees were being paid, we knew of a number of kids who were welcomed into all the programs, even though their families could not afford the fees. One of those kids now instructs a highly competitive high school drumline. Okay, that's my rant for the day. Yay, SoCal! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Knob Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 (edited) Those who can, teach. Those who cannot pass laws about teaching. Does this ever apply in Florida! A couple thoughts. First of all, of course "drum corps folk" should be concerned with the health of public school music programs. That's where nearly everyone gets their start in music, and is introduced to the marching activity. California is, and has been, a hotbed for talent for decades. There are many large, very successful programs throughout the state that will be at risk in the coming years. Southern California was just the first region to be hit. Also, many of the leaders in the drum corps activity spend their fall honing their craft with high school marching band programs. If there aren't any bands to teach or design for, where do they go? That's obviously a doomsday scenario. Also, suggesting that California band programs don't have band boosters already is asinine. No band program can succeed without strong boosters. I sat through a booster budget meeting last night for my program. Without the support of these amazing parents, well our program wouldn't be thriving the way it is now. However, if students no longer have to pay fees and we lose that source of income, then the size and scope of our program is going to do a complete 180 and we won't be able to create the same experiences we do now. Excellent comment that applies exactly to me and my high school band program too. This could open a huge can of worms for all of us. Edited May 26, 2011 by Steve Knob 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruckner8 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Football is EXTRA-curricular. Music is CURRICULAR. Therefore, charging extra fees for MUSIC classes makes no sense. It's either part of the state-mandated curriculum (and therefore already paid for, for those choosing to participate in its classes), or the state must remove it from the curriculum, deeming it useless for general education. The problem with "bands," being large and public-facing, is they look like EXTRA-curricular activities to the ignoramuses running schools. When schools do this, they're actually saying "Instrumental Music is not a high enough priority for us to make it work within a strong curriculum." Next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actucker Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Football is EXTRA-curricular. Music is CURRICULAR. Therefore, charging extra fees for MUSIC classes makes no sense. It's either part of the state-mandated curriculum (and therefore already paid for, for those choosing to participate in its classes), or the state must remove it from the curriculum, deeming it useless for general education. The problem with "bands," being large and public-facing, is they look like EXTRA-curricular activities to the ignoramuses running schools. When schools do this, they're actually saying "Instrumental Music is not a high enough priority for us to make it work within a strong curriculum." Next. I don't know how things work in California, but where I teach, music classes are just that. Classes. There are no fees to be in symphonic band, or orchestra, or any other daytime classes. Where you start to get into "fair share" payments, is when you participate in the after school music activities, such as marching band, jazz ensemble, indoor percussion, etc. This is the same as the differences between fitness related classes (weight training, PE, etc) and extra curricular sports such as football and baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAvery Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 (edited) Football is EXTRA-curricular. Music is CURRICULAR. Therefore, charging extra fees for MUSIC classes makes no sense. It's either part of the state-mandated curriculum (and therefore already paid for, for those choosing to participate in its classes), or the state must remove it from the curriculum, deeming it useless for general education. The problem with "bands," being large and public-facing, is they look like EXTRA-curricular activities to the ignoramuses running schools. When schools do this, they're actually saying "Instrumental Music is not a high enough priority for us to make it work within a strong curriculum." Next. The only way band is totally curricular is if there are no graded performances outside of the school day. When you have graded performance outside of the school day it would actually be co-curricular. One thing I have always wondered about is the amount of student fees. There are many workbook fees, science lab fees, etc. Most schools will hold the grade card unless all fees are paid. But besides that in many schools around my area marching band is totally outside of the school day. Which means it is extra-curricular. Hence why the band director gets paid a supplemental. Charging a fee for extra-curricular activities is pretty common. That being said, it does cause a lot of confusion with the general public. Concert band is co-curricular and marching band extra-curricular. Same director, usually the same students. Most people just think they are one and the same. Edited May 26, 2011 by DAvery Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 CasualFan, on 25 May 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:Oh dear, poor Southern California. Now they will have to start band booster programs like the rest of the country has for the past 20-30 years. Wow, that's a pretty shameful comment. snip I think the correct descriptor you mean is "naive" (to put it politely towards "casual fan"). As a band teacher in Southern CA, I can confirm that, indeed, the ACLU is going after extra curricular programs that have HAD to be funded via parent donations due to the state government having very little concern with funding education. Instead of the ACLU trying to "force" CA to actually fund education properly (for the past several years CA has "declined" to fully fund education, opting instead to give a virtual IOU of several billion dollars that will likely never be repaid), they are instead choosing to go after districts who ask parents to fund education: instrumental music, art, and other co-curricular activities as well as all EXTRA curricular activities. It is too bad that CA doesn't have interest in funding education, and spends several times more per prison inmate a year than they do K-12 student education. How does this affect drum corps? Right off the bat, if ACLU is successful in CA (recently the current governor rejected the ACLU/CA agreement because of logistical nonsense, so the ACLU is back to the drawing board as far as how to proceed: yes that is vastly understating current events), rest assured they will go after other states. In OH for example, where I grew up/went to school, similar budget cuts are forcing sports and bands to charge more to pay for the experience, and are publicly making news. I don't know what the OH laws are, but if they are similar to CA then OH could be facing a similar lawsuit. If the ACLU decides to travel the country suing other states, it would essentially force programs to be more aggressive fundraising in the community, which might make it difficult for drum corps: groups that are as extra curricular as you can get! As others have mentioned, the recruiting base would be smaller as the trickle-down effect goes from lack of secondary ed music students = fewer music ed students = fewer people auditioning. Plus, kids/parents paying more for scholastic music might not have the extra income for drum corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catan Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Does this ever apply in Florida! Excellent comment that applies exactly to me and my high school band program too. This could open a huge can of worms for all of us. Seriously. The board of education here in Hillsborough County makes the most idiotic decisions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.