article in Dance magazine
Posted 05 February 2003 - 11:13 AM
Posted 05 February 2003 - 03:04 PM
My initial training was at a community center, but the teacher was an accomplished teacher/choreographer who was working his way from one coast to the other and stayed in this program for several years. When he moved on, he placed all of his students with good schools and we did not have to 'relearn';)
I do not believe that discipline, structure or technique have to be dry, oppressive experiences and I also believe that when people understand how to use these tools, that they will actually find joy in the process!
That said, a technical teacher may not be better if she/he lacks the skills to communicate effectively. I can't, however, fathom that a community would prefer joyful well-trained dancers to happy mediocre dancers;)
Posted 05 February 2003 - 03:47 PM
And this written by an "educator"?
It may be a good business strategy, but it sure as shootin' isn't education, for either the students or the audiences, be they doting parents or the general public. What nonsense!
Posted 11 February 2003 - 07:08 AM
Wouldn't this be considered "recreational," even with top-notch instruction?
Posted 11 February 2003 - 08:19 AM
I'm with Fendrock here: there is pre-professional training, and there is recreational training. For me, the defining difference is not quality of instruction, but intensity. Let me clarify that: GIVEN the same superlative instructor, one student could be receiving pre-pro training and another recreational training. It depends on the student's abilities, motivations, time commitment, etc.
Given a poor instructor, there is neither pre-pro nor recreational training. There is an after-school activity.
I'm also curious about the level of instruction the original author was talking about. I think -- but am open to debate -- that in pre-ballet classes it could be perfectly okay to have an instructor whose technique wasn't perfect. As a parent, I'd be looking for other things: someone who could instill a love of movement, musicality, rhythm, discipline. What I don't know is how long in a dancer's training this suffices. At some point, good technique becomes more important. Of course, I would not want great technique without some teaching skills as well.
Posted 11 February 2003 - 07:23 PM
Some parts of the technique require daily practice to keep in shape. It is unreasonable to expect a 50-year-old teacher to display good technique in those areas, and it would be foolish to immediately forgoe that teacher over a 30-year-old teacher with 20 years less experience.
Other parts of the technique don't require daily practice; you can do them however old and decrepit you become. If your 50-year-old teacher isn't doing them in demonstrating things, you know something's wrong.
My Artistic Director hasn't taken a ballet class for a long time. But in many respects he can make his feet look better in sneakers than most of us can in ballet slippers or pointe shoes. He's maximizing the parts of technique that don't require daily practice.
Posted 12 February 2003 - 03:17 AM
So, after reading the article called "Cutting Your Losses" Nov 2002 p.66 (I think this is the one discussed in this thread - if it's not, I'd like to comment anyway) I would like to add my two cents to the discussion.
Wow. For an article in a section entitled "On Education" - it contains very little on "education" but a whole lot more on making money for your studio.
I find the following exerpt particularly disturbing:
"Developing a reputation that you train professional dancers is not always good for business. Producing good dancers is important, but having a neighborhood school where everyone can learn to dance--and enjoy it--is the way to go financially."
I definately appreciate (and totally support!) the need for studio owners to make a living. It just seemed really strange to read an article that was focussed more on the loss of income an unhappy child could result in - rather than focussing on improving the emotional state of the child. If someone is only running a studio as a money-making scheme - I think I would try to stay far, far away.
I agree with the other opinions on this thread that the difference between professional and non-professional track training should be in the intensity and not the quality of training. I have witnessed this being carried out - and it seems to work quite well.
Posted 12 February 2003 - 08:21 AM
Most parents send their kids to dance, or martial arts for that matter, not because they think they are going to dance professionally, or get in a bunch of fistfights, but because the activity has intrinsic value in and of itself. So most of the market is recreational. Ignoring the market or competing in a market that is already over saturated (what percentage of students in pre-professional dance programs go on to have professional careers?) is not the way to survive for most people. And as others have said very well, just because a program is not aimed at developing professionals, it doesn’t mean that that professionalism in instruction is relaxed. No one intentionally provides schlock.
Being a person who is in business for myself, I can attest that the financial side of any business is as important as the nature of the service you provide or the product you make. I thought fendrock and Treefrog’s comments were right on the money.
Posted 12 February 2003 - 11:17 PM
i have noticed cabriole's attitude to this question before, on other boards, and read her comments with great interest, as i know her posts to be always informative and often thought-provoking. i think that she and i probably believe in the same thing here, even though we seem to express it as if we differ.
maybe it is the interpretation of the word 'recreational'?
whatever it is, i believe that the vast majority of kids and parents ARE looking for recreational training, and should be provided with that. yes, i DO believe that it is appropriate, in a business market, to give people what they are looking for. (sorry, mel! ;) )
vocational training ought NOT to be forced on, or even 'offered' to, children and parents who don't want it.
to me, the word 'recreational' simply means for fun, for pleasure, for exercise, towards social ends....it says nothing at all about the QUALITY of the teaching (teaching methods, teaching styles, etc). one can have good or bad recreational teachers, just as one can have good or bad vocational teachers.
Posted 13 February 2003 - 04:32 AM
Posted 13 February 2003 - 06:26 AM
Posted 13 February 2003 - 07:42 AM
What I'm defending, certainly, is the good neighborhood school. Solid teaching, with a well-defined curriculum and syllabus? Absolutely. Professional-level technique? Overkill. Most of the students do not have the ability or mindset to take advantage of this.
In my mind, this school knows its clientele and caters to what it needs. NOT what it demands, because the professional dance teacher should understand the needs better than the parents. Part of the school's function should be to educate the parents about what constitutes safe and effective training. This school should also understand its own limits, and gladly hand off its talented students to more suitable training regimens.
Very, very few students are truly pre-pro, by virtue of the fact that so few professional positions exist. Shouldn't the ballet world be putting more emphasis on getting good training to the other 99.5% of the dancers out there?
Posted 13 February 2003 - 07:56 AM
For those who are opposed to recreational training, are any opposed because they feel it is not really possible to train recreationally and learn ballet in a significant way?
Posted 13 February 2003 - 08:46 AM
"Your faculty may need a financial incentive to retain students. One school offers faculty members five dollars for every student who remains enrolled in their classes for the full season. Your bonus could be different; but what's important is to offer some sort of incentive. In most cases, nothing works better than cash!"
Although, in principle I agree with Gary's statement that:
"the financial side of any business is as important as the nature of the service you provide or the product you make."
I think that one has to be very careful when the service you provide is the instruction of children. I worry that if the teachers that are teaching at the schools the article is aimed at need a financial incentive in order to keep students from dropping out that they will not be providing the:
"Solid teaching, with a well-defined curriculum and syllabus"
that Treefrog is describing. I guess that is what I found disturbing - not the suggestion of offering recreational training.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users