appropriate age - music / ballet class

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:38:47 EDT, (Robyn
Kozierok) wrote:

Matthew started piano at 6.25 years. He was in a group pre-piano class
that involved a lot of playing by ear and solfege, as well as work on
rhythm, etc. It was the first year of a two-year program. He was the
oldest in the group and has progressed faster than the others, so at
his teacher's advice, we are pulling him out of group lessons and going
to private. He learned a lot. The class was advertised for 4.5 - 7yos
but Matthew seemed to be at an optimal age for it. The younger kids
(5 to 5.75yo when starting) really didn't seem to get nearly as much out
of it.

How much of the pre-piano is reading music at this age. I am
considering starting my daughter next summer on the piano, but I may try
to teach her myself. I would like to find and appropriate curriculum.
Any suggestions?

Karen

PS How many kids are in the group class?

Elizabeth Gardner writes:
The ones who get obsessed with practicing (as opposed to the ones who
are kept to a strict practice schedule by obsessed parents) are in the
minority, and often are the ones that are truly gifted at whatever the
activity is. In these cases, obsession isn't something undesirable or
avoidable--it's their destiny.

I don't agree at all about "destiny". Take a world-class ballerina, and
put her in a different environment where she never gets exposed to
ballet, and she would become something totally different. She wouldn't
necessarily discover ballet just because she's good at it, nor, even if
she were exposed to ballet, would she necessarily develop the
"obsession" necessary to develop her talents, if her environment and
parenting led her in a different direction.

If my daughter had the talent to be a world-class ballerina, I still
wouldn't necessarily want her to, nor would I agree that it's her
inevitable "destiny". Making decisions about what's good for children
is what parents do.

David desJardins

David desJardins wrote:
If my daughter had the talent to be a world-class ballerina, I still
wouldn't necessarily want her to, nor would I agree that it's her
inevitable "destiny". Making decisions about what's good for children
is what parents do.

Sure, agreed on the "destiny" bit. On the other hand, people answer
questions relative to their experience. Not trying to speak for the OP,
my experience is that it's rare to see kids encouraged to develop unique
skills deeply. I see way too much of kids being sent to half a dozen
"enrichment activities" from music lessons to two different team sports
plus gymnastics and dance, and not being allowed to really commit to any
of them because they have to keep up the schedule.

These kids learn that it's too much of a pain to learn skills and be
extraordinarily good at something, so they should probe around for
natural talent and enjoy it as long as it lasts, and then move on. I
happen to organize a competitive science activity, and I run across all
sorts of kids who want to look into some activities for a few hours a
week for a while, and then they either get lucky or just proclaim that
they "aren't good at that kind of thing" and wander off.

That bothers me a lot. Maybe I'm projecting a bit on this subthread,
but I read Elizabeth Gardner's post with a lot of agreement and
sympathy, despite my believing that it's possible for a parent to change
things. The point is, if a kid wants to develop a skill and become
really good at something, I see that as a positive development. Only
when the kid decides that about several skills and threatens to end up
overcommitted would I intervene.

[Note: I realize this phenomenon is probably a bit less common in
general society; I know mostly homeschooled kids because of my
involvement in a group in town here, and that influences this a lot.
Nevertheless, I think there are plentiful examples of this same thing
happening in traditionally schooled families.]

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way to Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:37:45 -0400, Chris Smith wrote:

snip
I see way too much of kids being sent to half a dozen "enrichment
activities" from music lessons to two different team sports plus
gymnastics and dance, and not being allowed to really commit to any of
them because they have to keep up the schedule.

These kids learn that it's too much of a pain to learn skills and be
extraordinarily good at something, so they should probe around for
natural talent and enjoy it as long as it lasts, and then move on. I
happen to organize a competitive science activity, and I run across all
sorts of kids who want to look into some activities for a few hours a
week for a while, and then they either get lucky or just proclaim that
they "aren't good at that kind of thing" and wander off. snip

I have to disagree with you here. I was what most people would have
considered an "overcommitted kid". At age 14, I was in school full time,
worked a regular job on Fri., Sat., and Sun. nights, babysat weeknights
and sunday afternoons, worked with two drug abuse prevention programs,
wrote for my high school paper (occassional articles when I had time, not
a column), was in chess club, tutored programming, volunteered at my old
grade school working with special needs kids and helping maintain the
computer system, was on both JV and Varsity forensics, and was active in
local politics lobbying for more funds and support for education and drug
abuse prevention. Somewhere in there, I even managed to have some
semblance of a social life.

I was always hopping, but I loved it. That year's activities were just a
convenient example: I was equally swamped every year. Some people need to
be busy to be happy, and I am one of those people. I developed many
wonderful skills, and didn't ever feel pulled in too many directions.

I did have the advantage that all of my activities played into one
another. My drug abuse prevention programs, time at the gradeschool, and
babysitting job all involved working with kids. The forensics team,
political activities, journalism experience, drug abuse prevention
programs, and teaching activities all helped my communications skills
grow. Forensics, politics, and chess all required me to think on my feet
and be quick to adapt. Nothing I did was in isolation from anything else
I did.

Unless your child is foundering while trying to juggle more than they can
handle, seriously consider letting him/her decide what pace he/she works
best at.

Just my two cents

Susan

x-no-archive:yes
Chris Smith wrote:

David desJardins wrote:
If my daughter had the talent to be a world-class ballerina, I still
wouldn't necessarily want her to, nor would I agree that it's her
inevitable "destiny". Making decisions about what's good for children
is what parents do.

Sometimes though kids do want to focus on some particular thing. I've
seen this both in my own kids and in other people's kids. The
question is really - does the kid have the talent to be world-class
and if not how can we get them to accept this.

DD#2 decided when she was 6 that she wanted to swim competitively.
She bugged me for 2 years until I found a swim team that she could
join, and it was a real pain to get to practice as it was a
significant distance (half hour drive) from us and at a kind of
difficult time. I got into coaching swimming because the pool was too
far away from the house for me to do anything but stay at the pool -
I'd have had to turn around and go back for her as soon as I got home
if I returned home.

Eventually she got all the other kids involved because it was far
easier for me to have them all doing the same thing (practice was the
same time for all age groups) especially after I started coaching.
However none of my kids were world-class. They were useful team
swimmers but were never more than B time.

I did have one boy on my team who did more or less the same thing - he
bugged his parents from the time he was 6. He didn't seem to me to be
especially talented either, but his goal was to be on the Olympic
team, and he in fact did that and swam in the consolation final in the
Barcelona Olympics. He didn't medal, but I'd say that being in the
top 20 in the world was world class.

I also had swimmers on my teams who were extremely talented. They
could win any race on our level even in their least favored strokes.
But sometimes these kids wouldn't practice hard and wouldn't try hard
because they could win without doing so. They might have been world
class, but they didn't have the focus to do so. That's OK too.
Sometimes they had another sport that they excelled in and were more
interested in practicing and sometimes not.

I also had kids who seemed to be talented but whose parents were
pushing them quite a bit. Sometimes these people felt that my
coaching wasn't good enough for their child. None of their children
ever made a name for themselves or became world class that I know of.

Sure, agreed on the "destiny" bit. On the other hand, people answer
questions relative to their experience. Not trying to speak for the OP,
my experience is that it's rare to see kids encouraged to develop unique
skills deeply. I see way too much of kids being sent to half a dozen
"enrichment activities" from music lessons to two different team sports
plus gymnastics and dance, and not being allowed to really commit to any
of them because they have to keep up the schedule.

Why should they commit to something that they aren't really interested
in? The whole point of doing varied activities is that you get
different experiences and develop a certain amount of facility - if
the kid isn't interested enough to want to go deeper, why blame the
parent for over scheduling? IME it is far more common for the parent
to push a kid that isn't that interested then it is for the kid to not
be able to commit because of the parent. It just isn't that easy to
MAKE a kid practice or go to something that they don't want to do.

These kids learn that it's too much of a pain to learn skills and be
extraordinarily good at something, so they should probe around for
natural talent and enjoy it as long as it lasts, and then move on. I

I don't see anything wrong with this idea. Why not enjoy a natural
talent? There's no reason for a kid or anyone to suffer learning
something that doesn't interest them no matter what talent they have.

happen to organize a competitive science activity, and I run across all
sorts of kids who want to look into some activities for a few hours a
week for a while, and then they either get lucky or just proclaim that
they "aren't good at that kind of thing" and wander off.

I haven't been involved in 'competitive science' and don't really know
what that is.

That bothers me a lot. Maybe I'm projecting a bit on this subthread,
but I read Elizabeth Gardner's post with a lot of agreement and
sympathy, despite my believing that it's possible for a parent to change
things. The point is, if a kid wants to develop a skill and become
really good at something, I see that as a positive development. Only
when the kid decides that about several skills and threatens to end up
overcommitted would I intervene.

[Note: I realize this phenomenon is probably a bit less common in
general society; I know mostly homeschooled kids because of my
involvement in a group in town here, and that influences this a lot.
Nevertheless, I think there are plentiful examples of this same thing
happening in traditionally schooled families.]

grandma Rosalie

In article ,
Karen G wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:38:47 EDT, (Robyn
Kozierok) wrote:

Matthew started piano at 6.25 years. He was in a group pre-piano class
that involved a lot of playing by ear and solfege, as well as work on
rhythm, etc. It was the first year of a two-year program. He was the
oldest in the group and has progressed faster than the others, so at
his teacher's advice, we are pulling him out of group lessons and going
to private. He learned a lot. The class was advertised for 4.5 - 7yos
but Matthew seemed to be at an optimal age for it. The younger kids
(5 to 5.75yo when starting) really didn't seem to get nearly as much out
of it.

How much of the pre-piano is reading music at this age. I am
considering starting my daughter next summer on the piano, but I may try
to teach her myself. I would like to find and appropriate curriculum.
Any suggestions?

I believe Matthew's group was 6 kids. They had enough pianos/keyboards
in the room for each kid to have their own.

The curriculum was MusikGarten, which I believe is an offshoot of
KinderMusik (some of their stuff is religiously oriented, I believe;
this pre-piano course isn't). It was called something like "Music
Makers at the Keyboard". The materials were fairly expensive and
included a workbook and 2 CD's -- a listening CD and a practice CD. In
theory, they spend about half the year playing by ear and then move
into reading the music, but Matt's group really didn't get into the
reading music much as most or the kids just weren't ready for that.
Matt was the only one who learned to play with 2 hands, though the
program includes that early on. The CDs are good. For the songs they
will play, they first play/sing the song, then sing the solfege
(Do-do-do sol-sol-sol do-do-do-sol, etc...) They learn how to play
sol-mi-do in several different keys/positions at first, so they can
play their songs in different keys. I found the approach really
interesting and neat, and seemed to work really well for Matt.

--Robyn

Chris Smith writes:
That bothers me a lot. Maybe I'm projecting a bit on this subthread,
but I read Elizabeth Gardner's post with a lot of agreement and
sympathy, despite my believing that it's possible for a parent to change
things. The point is, if a kid wants to develop a skill and become
really good at something, I see that as a positive development.

Well, I think it depends a lot on what the skill is. Suppose the child
wants to become really good at Quake III. OK, she can win computer game
tournaments, but does that have so much value that you want to encourage
that?

That example is intentionally artificial to get people to see the point.
But I tend to feel the same way about most sports. They have intrinsic
value (from a fitness and health point of view) in moderation, but
there's no particular value in overdoing them just to be "really good".

Music and ballet (from the subject of this thread) are more nuanced. I
can see value in doing those well (as a career, or in order to be able
to perform for the entertainment of others), but much of the value that
I see from them mostly would be gained from moderate involvement (e.g.,
I think music study can help one develop an appreciation of music, and
also some logical and symbolic reasoning skills, and perhaps some finger
dexterity and coordination; ballet, in moderation, can be a good way to
develop fitness [although it may well damage one's health when done to
excess], and may also help develop an appreciation for dance and music).

I guess I'm far more interested in having my own children do several of
these things in moderation, than to obsessively participate in one of
them. (I can easily imagine 10+ hours/week of ballet practice and drill
at age 8 or so, as a path to becoming a really serious ballerina, which
I think is too much for that age from the point of view of overall
development, as well as interfering with family life. While I'm not
specifically familiar with ballet schools, I know that other physical
activities, e.g., many sports, often require that level of commitment
from children who want to become "really good".)

David desJardins

In article , David desJardins says...


I guess I'm far more interested in having my own children do several of
these things in moderation, than to obsessively participate in one of
them. (I can easily imagine 10+ hours/week of ballet practice and drill
at age 8 or so, as a path to becoming a really serious ballerina, which
I think is too much for that age from the point of view of overall
development, as well as interfering with family life. While I'm not
specifically familiar with ballet schools, I know that other physical
activities, e.g., many sports, often require that level of commitment
from children who want to become "really good".)

David desJardins


How would you approach it if one of your children wanted to concentrate on one
thing, and it were something like ballet?

Banty

David desJardins wrote:
I guess I'm far more interested in having my own children do several of
these things in moderation, than to obsessively participate in one of
them.

We probably aren't in disagreement, of course, but rather focusing on
different aspects of the same issue. If we wanted to meaningfully
disagree, both of us would have to stop using judgement-relative terms
like "moderation" and "obsession" and "casual" and start giving absolute
measurements of committment that we consider appropriate or
inappropriate. I can't very say that "moderation" is bad and
"obsession" is good, because the words themselves imply the value
judgements.

The problem I see, in real life, is that a lot of kids (mostly from a
particular homeschool support group I am involved with) DO claim to be
interested in something specific, sign up for some cooperative classes
on it for an hour a week for about eight or nine weeks, and then decide
that it's not fun for them that way, because they are digging below the
glamorous surface of something and getting into the part that requires
effort. I imagine the same kind of thing happens when kids that are
fascinated with ballerinas find out that some dance steps are difficult
or that they don't look graceful and poised after practicing for a
month, or when a kid that really likes the idea of figure skating
discovers that they have a good bit of practice to go before they will
bedoing jumps and twirls.

Of course, I also see kids who are a bit intrigued and show up to see if
it catches their fancy, and leave when they find that it doesn't. These
kids don't worry me. What worries me is the kids who come and talk
about how chemistry (for example, because that's the kind of activity
I'm mostly involved in) is their passion and they have been fascinated
with it for years, and then receive no encouragement to continue when
they are asked to learn basic concepts of chemistry that they didn't
know and start having to work at something. I worry about these kids
because I *know* that they are even less into other things, that this
*is* the kind of thing that is most likely to hold their interest, and
nevertheless, they are being casually allowed, even encouraged, to back
off from it because it got hard.

So I'll admit that my frustration at watching this happen was building
up and looking for a place to vent to, and this thread wasn't the
perfect place. Nevertheless, it did vent here, and you got to see it.


--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way to Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

In article , Rosalie B. wrote:
Particularly with music, where in order to get good enough to enjoy
it, it has to be practiced for a long time. I feel about music in
almost the same way I feel about regular school. All kids should do
it to the point of being able to play a tune from a piece of easy
music.

I got this level of instruction, and then some, and I still can't
remember or reproduce a tune with anything like normal levels of
accuracy. It may be genetic, since my father can't carry a tune
either and it looks like my son can't (perhaps a bit early to tell yet
at 7, but he doesn't even like listening to music), but my mother and
my siblings are quite musical (my sister even majored in music in
college and was quiet a good French horn player).

How much do you push music on someone with considerably less than
average skill at it?

Other than the readin' writin' and 'rithmetic and other things that
they learn in school, I think all children should learn how to do
various skills for safety and in order to live in their society.
Things as varied as how to swim and how to drive a gearshift car. But
after the child learns to swim, if they really don't like it, they
don't have to be on a swim team for years.

Swimming is definitely a life skill that all kids should be taught if
possible. It's another one of those things that I got lots of
instruction in, but never got any good at.

I'm not so sure that driving a manual gearshift is an important skill
any more. If it is, my son will be at a distinct disadvantage, since
neither my wife not I have ever had a driver's license. I regard
knowing how to read a bus schedule and ride a bus as life skills, and
am continually amazed at how many college students and adults here in
Santa Cruz have never acquired these skills.

We've had some discussion on what the life skills are that a child
should learn. I don't think ballet is one of them, although my mom
thought it was good for teaching someone to move gracefully.

Ballet is only one of many ways to learn to move gracefully, and
hardly the most useful. Training in a martial art that uses flowing
movements is another route to this goal. I think that learning how to
fall safely is a really important life skill, so have my son in aikido
classes, for the movement practice and the falling practice. (I
sometimes do aikido myself, when my knees will let me.)

My mom had certain skills that she thought a well brought up young
lady should have. This included playing the piano or some musical
instrument, ability to ride a horse, swim, play bridge, sail a boat,
play tennis, and dance (that is ballroom dancing). Her idea was that
if a boy asked me or my sister out on a sailing date (for instance)
that we should know enough about it not to completely embarrass
ourselves and our date.

I don't think these are the same skills that I would say a girl (or
child) needs now, although I think everyone should know how to swim.

The basic concept, that activities one is likely to be called on to do
socially are good to know about, is still a good one, but what those
activities are will vary enormously from time to time and from place
to place. Even more important are skills that will keep one alive and
healthy (swimming, knowing how to fall safely, cooking, doing laundry,
riding a bike safely, ...).


--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.