Teachable Moments (03-02-09)

This week, I had the privilege to watch our talented and hard working junior high musicians as they performed at the MCEL League Music Festival. I always find festivals to be refreshing in that there is no competition among the participants. While I like a good competition as much as the next person, I believe that our kids face plenty of competition in their lives, especially during their academic careers. So I am always grateful when I can see the students perform in a non-competitive environment.

Though the students were not ranked best to worst, they were rated on a four point scale, with pluses and minuses possible for the “I,” “II,” “III,” and “IV” ratings. These ratings create enough pressure that I saw many students react visibly to what their performance had rated.

These ratings are a lot like grades, and in fact I don’t know why the judges don’t just use A, B, C, and D instead of Roman numerals. There are many similarities between the ratings given at league music and the grades given in school. There are also some fundamental differences.

First, both a rating and grade reflect the quality of a performance in comparison to the standards set by the judge or the teacher. All performers could, theoretically, earn a “I-plus” rating, just as all students in a class could earn A plus grades. However, unlike a classroom environment where grades are usually assigned on an objective numerical scale (90%, 80%, 70%, 60%, etc) the ratings given for a musical performance are more subjective. No one is keeping statistical track of the number of notes missed or the percent of increase or decrease a musician uses when the music calls for them to play louder or softer.

Rather, the rating is the judge’s personal opinion as to how well they feel the music was played considering the performer’s age and ability. The judges try, in a short time, to ascertain the amount of preparation that went into a performance and the amount of potential of any given musician. A “I” rating indicates that the performer met the highest level of their potential as a junior high musician. And while one performance is not competing against another, the performances seen by one judge throughout the day are certainly compared to help that judge decide what should be deemed the strongest.

For me, though, the part of league music that fascinates me is what comes after the performance. Unlike anything else I have ever seen, at league music the judge is allowed (and encouraged) to interact with the musician after the performance.

Talk about a teachable moment! The soloist, or small ensemble, enters a room, faces a stranger, nervously performs some piece of music, and then, bam! - the judge stands up, and begins teaching. I saw judges spend from as little as a minute, to as much as fifteen minutes having musicians play and replay parts of the music that the judge felt needed improvement. I saw judges demonstrate technique and proper posture. I listened while judges carefully critiqued young musicians, mixing in plenty of praise with the points they wanted the youth to learn.

All the judges I saw perform these “lessons” were passionate, knowledgeable, and effective at communicating with kids. By the end of each critique, the nerves were all but gone. The students walked out of the rooms with their heads a little higher, and their brains a little fuller with expert advice and wise musicianship.

Longfellow Middle School musicians, under the tutelage of our very own expert music educator Claudia Potter, left with twenty-six “I” ratings to just eleven “II” ratings, with no rating lower than that. All in all, it was a wonderful spotlight on the dedication by both Mrs. Potter and our talented Graham County youth. But for me, the experience was more than just ratings and judging sheets. In my perspective, it was a day of teaching and learning, and I was thrilled to see the judges take advantage of so many teachable moments.