Reading Is Fundamental

[Wilktone]

How is this not "solfege"? It is syllables used to demonstrate the rhythms.

Without looking up a strict definition of "solfège," (maybe it technically is supposed be made up of syllables that are not actual words), I would say it is.

How is it less consistent? Two eighths, for example, will always have the same construction regardless of what precede or follow them, not 11 different possibilities.

It's fine. I learned from the traditional method. I think the advantages that Kodaly, Takademi, or other rhythmic solfège styles have over the traditional rhythmic approach is that downbeats are always the same syllable, rather than having to change them to sound whatever beat the downbeat happens to fall on. I find that sometimes when I count out rhythms with the traditional method that it's hard to keep the downbeat numbers straight. I can still sing the rhythms correctly, but screw up the numbers I call out.

If you get into meters with 7 beats you would need to shorten that number to "s'ven" in order to squeeze it into one syllable, but I doubt that would really become an issue enough to worry about it.

The food thing, on the other hand, is not meant to be the ultimate approach. It's meant to be a way to help students connect with what they are learning in a fun way. What elementary (or even high school) student wouldn't want to think about ice cream and soda? And as a launching point for them to create their own lyrics to fit music they are learning it works well too. I've had students compose their own songs for "bucket band" (drumsticks on buckets) just by asking them questions like what they did over the weekend. "I went to two birthday parties!"

Screenshot 2023-11-02 at 9.24.26 AM.png

Using lyrics over solfège is just meant to help make what they are doing more meaningful and offer some sort of connection beyond nonsense syllables. It helps impart an internal motivation (this is fun) for learning music, which is much more effective than an external one (pleasing the teacher, parent, etc.).

when I'm tasked with playing something using quintuplets (I think to myself, "u-ni-ver-si-ty")

... but /ˌjuːnɪˈvəːsɪti/ has an internal stress or protorhythm that disrupts even subdivision.

You don't say /oneːtwoˈthreeːfourːfive/ by default.

Well so does "disgraced cosmonaut," but we can still learn to associate the rhythm and lyrics together.

Inevitably, singers would remember certain difficult passages in conjunction with the text setting, but that's reflective of memory formation... it wasn't how they got it right in the first instance.

Exactly, using lyrics to help teach rhythms is designed to help them form a mnemonic for what they happen to be playing. Maybe you start with those, maybe you pull them out with your middle school band when they are having trouble playing a certain rhythm together. It's just a tool to stick in the box, I wouldn't recommend that anyone rely completely on this system as the end goal.

I raised exactly this point with a music teacher when I was 6.

No opinions were changed, but I did learn just how much a particular type of adult appreciated feedback.

And from that you learned a better way to respond, when the time came for you to be the adult. Probably a better lesson than any of the others you got from that person.

One of my job duties with MusicWorks (El Sistema program for primarily elementary school students) is to pull disruptive students out of classes and help them regulate their behavior so they can rejoin their group for the lesson. I often find it amazing how different the student's understanding of why I was asked to talk with them is from the actual reason. Often it's not what the student wanted to do or say, but the way they did it (e.g., interrupting the teacher multiple times when they were supposed to be listening silently).

And I don't trust my own memories from when I was 6. I'm not saying that what you experienced didn't happen, ithinknot, but that your recollection of exactly what went down, how it went down, and why it went down is filtered through your mind at the age of 6. In the process, you came to a determination that may or may not be accurate.

Maybe rhythmic solfege is indeed a waste of time, as you suggest. Having used it "in the trenches" for a while now, I disagree.

Dave

[ithinknot]

Maybe rhythmic solfege is indeed a waste of time, as you suggest.

The assertion wasn't general - I said *I* found text substitutions a waste of time at that age - all of which was in relation to the fundamental question (emphasis added):

Some students will learn by it, but will more learn better or faster by it?

I would further distinguish between the word substitutions (cute, and then potentially distracting) and the more obviously structured methods like Takadimi. I agree about tripping over beat numbers in the traditional method, though of course you can easily just substitute "beat" or your favorite monosyllable, or expand/physicalize the exercise with clapped beats/spoken divisions, etc etc.


As concerns my recall of personal legend, it's possible you might have read a little too much into that vignette, which happened to have been non-public and non-confrontational... though doubtless I must have been an intolerably chippy little autodidact.

No opinions were changed, but I did learn just how much a particular type of adult appreciated feedback.

And from that you learned a better way to respond, when the time came for you to be the adult. Probably a better lesson than any of the others you got from that person.

Yup... prior to school, I hadn't experienced children being spoken to "like children", and the adults I knew didn't interpret curiosity as challenge.

Even at that age, "because that's how I was taught" or "because I said so" seemed obviously... let's say... ill-equipped. There appeared to be plenty of teachers for whom any given Method was more lifebelt than springboard.

Having subsequently been involved in providing music education to that same age group, and met and worked alongside a higher caliber of professional educator, those responses strike me as tragically missed opportunities.

[tbdana]

Talking about using words for rhythms, my teacher used to call the dotted eighth - sixteenth - eighth (like in Wagner's "Ride") the "Amsterdam rhythm" since you say Amsterdam in approximately the right cadence. I still remember that, and it's been 60 years.

Yup. Teachers still use that.

[AtomicClock]

I have to think about dotted-eighth - sixteenth in order to figure out how you guys are saying Amsterdam. It's just three equal syllables to me!

I never learned any of these methods directly, although I picked up the conventional method after being in band classes for several years. Are we talking about teaching people to interpret written rhythms (which I learned directly, without any sort of solfege), or are we taking about recognizing large patterns, like the way we read words instead of letters? I could see that still being a valuable skill to learn, even now as an adult.

I like that 'university' idea. I don't think I've ever played a proper quintuplet.

[robcat2075]

A recurring problem with these discussions is not much of this validated in any rigorous way.

We each have a system that we successfully learned by or prefer over another or can construct cogent arguments for but...not much has been done in the way of properly designed studies to ascertain if any is superior to the others.

One of my job duties with MusicWorks (El Sistema program for primarily elementary school students) is to pull disruptive students out of classes and help them regulate their behavior so they can rejoin their group for the lesson.

Damn!
I wish I had had a guy like that when I was teaching band! I think you could make almost any system work if there was a remedy for disruptive students that wasn't taking up class time.

I have to think about dotted-eighth - sixteenth in order to figure out how you guys are saying Amsterdam. It's just three equal syllables to me!

Yeah. I think this is problem with using existing words. We don't all time them exactly alike. To me, "Amsterdam" is a 6/8 rhythm...

amsterdam68.jpg

But not always...

amsterdamMorey.jpg

[Wilktone]

The assertion wasn't general - I said *I* found text substitutions a waste of time at that age - all of which was in relation to the fundamental question (emphasis added):

Thanks for the clarification. And also the brief mention of your experience teaching - I was wondering how many of us posting here have actually implemented some of these ideas. But I had been left with the (erroneous) impression that you made up your mind about a pedagogical technique at the age of 6, partly due to a negative interaction with a teacher. I'm still not entirely certain I understand your criticism of using text to teach rhythms, though.

A recurring problem with these discussions is not much of this validated in any rigorous way.

Yesterday while I was stuck waiting for 20 minutes I started to poke around online for research on teaching rhythms. Most of the stuff I found with a cursory internet search was at least 20 years old, some over 100 years old. It's been looked at, but I haven't done any serious look at the literature. I will post a link to a relevant article below, the literature review seems to do a good job describing prior research.

We each have a system that we successfully learned by or prefer over another or can construct cogent arguments for but...not much has been done in the way of properly designed studies to ascertain if any is superior to the others.

I don't think that I'm being very clear. These different approaches to teaching reading and playing rhythms (counting number with "and," "uh," etc./rhythmic solfege, putting text to rhythms) are not exclusive to each other. We can (and probably should) use all three. We haven't even mentioned kinesthetic reinforcement (very good with young students who want and need to move around more than older students). Look up Dalcroze and Eurythmics as some codified examples. I don't think we need to rely exclusively on one or a couple of these approaches, they all work together and reinforce each other.

One thing I did notice when I was scanning research was a pilot study that looked at comparing a couple of approaches teaching 1st graders (6 year olds) to read rhythms. The paper makes a very good point that as students (in U.S., at least) don't typically start learning division in math until 3rd grade, teaching rhythms by using the quarter note as the beat and then subdividing is more confusing than teaching how to add rhythms. It's just a pilot study, however, and more research would be needed. It's a compelling argument, though.

Dave

[robcat2075]

I don't think that I'm being very clear. These different approaches to teaching reading and playing rhythms (counting number with "and," "uh," etc./rhythmic solfege, putting text to rhythms) are not exclusive to each other.... I don't think we need to rely exclusively on one or a couple of these approaches, they all work together and reinforce each other.

To you and I, these methods have much in common.

I don't get the sense that the evangelists for a system... Kodaly, for example... are like-minded.

One thing I did notice when I was scanning research was a pilot study that looked at comparing a couple of approaches teaching 1st graders (6 year olds) to read rhythms. ... It's just a pilot study, however, and more research would be needed. It's a compelling argument, though.

Interesting... I skimmed through it... their "additive" group did better in some fashion... but it leaves many uncertainties as to what was taught and tested.

This is the subdivision method? It's possible there is better way to teach subdivision than what they chose.

phants.jpg

The paper makes a very good point that as students (in U.S., at least) don't typically start learning division in math until 3rd grade, teaching rhythms by using the quarter note as the beat and then subdividing is more confusing than teaching how to add rhythms.

While they may not be learning the math operation of division of any arbitrary number by any other arbitrary number, 1st graders are certainly able to deal with concepts like "half" and "between" and "up" and "down".

The division of quantities on paper is a rather different notion than the division of time... in real time.

But I'm not advocating teaching music notation reading, elephants or otherwise, to first graders anyway. I'm not sure they are a good sample for this test.

[tbdana]

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing at a bunch of this. I'm not a great or special human being, and I and everyone I grew up with learned rhythms the old fashioned way, by just the actual notes used in exercises and etudes. How is that kids these days need food and elephants and all that nonsense? This is crazy1

[Burgerbob]

How is that kids these days need food and elephants and all that nonsense? This is crazy1

And there it is... "kids these days"

[BGuttman]

When I was a kid in 4th grade (late Pre-Cambrian Era) we all learned to play the Flutophone, a rather obnoxious cousin to the soprano recorder. We learned all the easy tunes kids grow up on: Hot Cross Buns, Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, etc. No complex rhythms there. Sure, we had some kids who couldn't figure out where to put fingers and how to play 4 quarter notes in a row. None of them grew up to be musicians; mostly they found some other skill and learned to capitalize on that.

Kids who had some musical aptitude were put in 5th Grade Band. We played easy stuff like Greensleeves (badly). We learned to read music, but nothing complex. Most of the kids in 5th Grade Band could figure out things like quarter/2 eighth (as 1/2 of a measure). We were never really challenged through elementary school so our reading skills and playing skills were well matched.

Nowadays there seem to be competitions for all grades where the kids are given challenges to sort out the good from the bad. And Band Directors find their jobs are contingent on the kids placing well in these competitions. Kids are now forced to play music written well above their reading ability. Music teachers have to find ways to break these challenging competition rhythms into manageable bits.

Since kids are McDonald's familiar, using McDonald's menu item names to describe rhythms is a good choice to help explain the competition piece. I like that. Helps shortcut the fact that the kids are reading music well above their competency range; sort of like asking an elementary school kid to read Travels with Charley. Sure some are up to that challenge, but many aren't.

[bitbckt]

This whole thread has been an ant fart away from an “old man yells at cloud” meme. “Kids these days” is the cherry on the sundae.

Hilarious. And sad.

Mostly sad.

[BGuttman]

If you read carefully, I'm not putting any blame on the kids. They play as well as (or maybe better than) I did at their age. The change is the expectation of what they can do. Kids are still kids. Some have musical aptitude, but most do not. Expecting all of them to be special is unrealistic.

This whole thread started because a kid asked for somebody to demonstrate how to play a musical challenge. This is like asking the quizmaster to spell a word in a spelling bee. Or asking to explain an exam quiz question by giving the answer.

Kids these days are no better or worse than kids of 65 years ago; just different.

[officermayo]

This whole thread has been an ant fart away from an “old man yells at cloud” meme. “Kids these days” is the cherry on the sundae.

Hilarious. And sad.

Mostly sad.

As the OP I will tell you that's incorrect. The bottom line is that kids are not being taught to read music. The thread's title might apply to you.

[atopper333]

Having been one of those ‘kids these days’ not to long ago…I can attest that in my time in school, I was taught how to count rhythms in beginning band, as I had an awesome band director. I went to a high school band which was mainly focused on marching. The director was a great leader, but didn’t get into teaching those basics. We relied on each other to count out the rhythms. When concert season came around…I struggled with sight reading as I couldn’t lock in a piece until I tried to play through it a dozen times.

It got better with exposure to constantly reading new charts in Jazz, and then going on to getting comfortable reading and playing music for the first time in a church group. My point with this is…it wasn’t taught as the pieces got more complex, and it wasn’t a priority unless you had your own personal initiative, and that was just over twenty years ago, when my high school band of just 150 on the field is now bigger than the four area high school bands combined…

In my opinion, it’s not a failure of the kids, and it’s not a failure of most of the educators, they are just horribly underfunded and unappreciated, and as interest in our bands locally wanes, so do the resources. It’s a vicious cycle and quite honestly, it is heartbreaking.

[officermayo]

I would agree with most of what you said, but funding has nothing to do with teaching fundamentals. It costs nothing to teach kids to read music. Now, finding the time to do so when all that matters is marching season - that is a problem.

[atopper333]

I would agree with most of what you said, but funding has nothing to do with teaching fundamentals. It costs nothing to teach kids to read music. Now, finding the time to do so when all that matters is marching season - that is a problem.

I would agree with you on the cost of teaching fundamentals …to me where the funding comes in is a lack of the ability to recruit at the Junior High School level to keep interest up.

I was somewhat interested in playing because my father played in his younger days prior to my birth…what sealed the deal for me was a high school band coming in with an awesome rendition of Bugler’s Holiday. Without funding, that outreach disappears. You got to get them through those doors to teach them…

[AtomicClock]

Now, finding the time to do so when all that matters is marching season - that is a problem.

Where does the emphasis on marching band come from? Certainly not the students. My friends and I all realized that marching season was an obstacle to endure in order to participate in the springtime concert band. Certainly not from the people who think school is a place for education. The parents are surely more concerned with the price tag of marching as a negative; instrument repairs, uniform purchases, etc.

Who's left? The athletic boosters? The principal's trophy case? Inability of the principal to evaluate the band director's job performance in any other way?

[officermayo]

Again, I never blamed the students. Don't know why that has to be restated.

[bitbckt]

Again, I never blamed the students. Don't know why that has to be restated.

Perhaps because you aren’t the only one who has expressed an opinion in this thread. The thread’s title might apply to you.

[atopper333]

Again, I never blamed the students. Don't know why that has to be restated.

Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, as you were the one to make the comment and know your intent with your own words…and seeking clarification from the source is always one of the most useful forms of communication…but I read it as you felt the the problem lies in the priorities of the band program/director, not the students?

I didn’t see it as a blame the kids comment…

[officermayo]

Correct.
The blame lies with the directors/programs/schools and NOT the students. They will rise to the level expected of them by those in authority. I know my students do.

[officermayo]

Again, I never blamed the students. Don't know why that has to be restated.

Perhaps because you aren’t the only one who has expressed an opinion in this thread. The thread’s title might apply to you.

See how I'm replying to you?
That's how you know to whom my comments are directed.

Perhaps you don't understand how internet discussions work.

[harrisonreed]

It costs nothing to teach kids to read music.

This is not true, no matter how you slice it. That's like saying it costs nothing to teach kids math or science. I'd argue it costs more to teach music to kids these days than other subjects, if you look at music and art as a "top of the food pyramid" sort of subject.

The way the media presents it, and from what I know about the world, time away from learning to *read*, period, and love learning through reading, is a HUGE cost. The discourse here concerns kids not being able to read music in high school, who might not even be reading text at a 6th grade level. They might have bigger fish to fry.

[bitbckt]

Perhaps because you aren’t the only one who has expressed an opinion in this thread. The thread’s title might apply to you.

See how I'm replying to you?
That's how you know to whom my comments are directed.

Perhaps you don't understand how internet discussions work.

The irony of this is unbearable, in light of the lack of threaded response in the post which I quoted. Keep raging against the dying of the light.

[atopper333]

It costs nothing to teach kids to read music.

This is not true, no matter how you slice it. That's like saying it costs nothing to teach kids math or science. I'd argue it costs more to teach music to kids these days than other subjects, if you look at music and art as a "top of the food pyramid" sort of subject.

The way the media presents it, and from what I know about the world, time away from learning to *read*, period, and love learning through reading, is a HUGE cost. The discourse here concerns kids not being able to read music in high school, who might not even be reading text at a 6th grade level. They might have bigger fish to fry.

I would agree with a lot of what you have to say…everything costs something, whether it would be money, time, energy, or something else of an intrinsic value. I really don’t think that’s arguable at all…

From my experience though, band at a high school level is an elective. As being an elective, it is voluntary for the student to participate in the program, a student’s motivation for coming to a band program can be many things…and there are many levels as to why this particular system is failing.

In order to avoid another discourse due to me not understanding in totality of what you’re saying…oh, the joys of text based communication….

Is it that you believe that as a top of the pyramid subject, it distracts students from focusing on reading at a level that is comparable to their current grade level in school?

I’d really like to take that part of the discussion on…but I don’t want make an assumption as to what you mean as to avoid another ‘tangent’ to the discussion…

[harrisonreed]

Is it that you believe that as a top of the pyramid subject, it distracts students from focusing on reading at a level that is comparable to their current grade level in school?

I’d really like to take that part of the discussion on…but I don’t want make an assumption as to what you mean as to avoid another ‘tangent’ to the discussion…

Well, it might distract from learning to read and write, but my point was more about putting the [c]art before the horse, so to speak. In my mind, the the education pyramid should be something like:

Top - Art/Music
5 - Foreign language
4 - Science/physics
3 - Mathematics and Logic OR a shop class
2 - History/social studies/global studies
1 - Reading and Writing (in the national language)
Base - Social/Communication/Discourse/Home economics

One of the biggest things you learn in school is how to deal with people, and I think our schools should be doing more to teach communication, teamwork, learning to be social, and how to cook/sew/clean, etc. Japan actually has a pretty good system for teaching home economics - kids get assigned cleaning duties in the class and cooking duties in the cafeteria (it's not a class, you just do it).

After that, reading and writing opens up the world to everyone. If you can read and write at a high level, and enjoy it, you can teach yourself almost any subject without a teacher. Yet, most adults in the US can only read at the 7th grade level and about half flat-out CAN'T READ (ie actually understand) an 8th grade level fiction book. High schoolers are now graduating at an even lower level than that. For example, only about 30% of 11th graders in Illinois were considered proficient in reading on the most recent SAT.

I don't think I need to really go through the rest of my pyramid, and I'm sure others would set theirs up differently. But yeah, I think kids have bigger fish to fry these days than learning to read sheet music. I don't think it's the kids faults that they are doing so poorly either -- their parents also can't read.

[Wilktone]

I was thinking a bit more about the OP.

I see posts in other trombone forums at least once a week where someone posts a photo of a piece of music asking "How does this go?".

First question, other trombone forum? I didn't realize there really was another.

Other experienced players will respond with links to videos. Are kids not being taught the basics of reading music? I ran into this while working at a community college. Folks with four years of high school band who cannot read.

What's going on in our schools?

But seriously, we discussed for a while whether your observations were a declining trend or not and I don't think we ever came to much of an agreement on that. One thought is that your sample population (students who ask "how does this go?") are self-selecting to post those questions online. The students who can read are busy practicing or asking different questions.

Are there students who aren't learning music literacy because they take short cuts? Sure. Sometimes it's their own choice and sometimes it's a teacher or educational circumstance that hasn't provided them with the resources to learn better. I don't think we can generalize too much here, each case needs to be addressed on its own.

I'm sorry, but I'm laughing at a bunch of this. I'm not a great or special human being, and I and everyone I grew up with learned rhythms the old fashioned way, by just the actual notes used in exercises and etudes. How is that kids these days need food and elephants and all that nonsense? This is crazy1

Picture icons for teaching young students music literacy first were used in 1964. Zoltan Kodaly began developing and teaching his ideas beginning in 1925. I can't find exactly when he developed his rhythmic solfege, but it was probably in the mid-20th century. He borrowed this concept from Emile-Joseph Cheve, who died in 1864. And of course the concept of pitch solfege has been around since about 900.

These ideas are not nonsense and certainly aren't new. Those of us who went to school to study music education are likely more familiar with them, however.

It costs nothing to teach kids to read music.

Other's have already pointed out the error here. It's about as true as saying, "It costs nothing to have musicians play at your event." Teachers need to pay for training and they need to be paid for their work. Not to mention that learning music literacy is more than learning how to read the notes on the page, it's about learning to play it. Musical instruments need to be purchased. Sheet music and other materials need to be purchased. The lights need to be turned on, etc.

As a rule, music classes tend to be higher costing programs than many other subjects. Particularly once you get into the university/college levels.

Where does the emphasis on marching band come from? Certainly not the students.

I think you might be surprised at how popular marching band can be at some schools. While I never really enjoyed it (and managed to avoid it, for the most part), I know many musicians and music teachers for whom marching band was their gateway into music studies.

It's also the most visible part of the music program at most high schools. It's the ensemble that more people will see than any other group. It's the ensemble that will usually get the most participation of any ensemble in the program. There are many reasons why high school programs emphasize marching band, and a lot of them are good reasons.

The blame lies with the directors/programs/schools and NOT the students.

I agree that the program and those in charge of setting it up and running it bear most of the responsibility, but sometimes it's the students. Again, I suspect that some of the students posting online "How does this go?" are just looking for short cuts. That's normal. How often do less-experienced musicians post questions about equipment, for example, hoping that a new mouthpiece or horn will help them break through their range cap?

From my experience though, band at a high school level is an elective.

Yes, and many will quit music after fulfilling that elective. Some will continue to participate, but only do it for fun. Rather than focusing on the fundamentals, many of those students will do the bare minimum for achievement and focus on the social elements or whatever aspect they get from it.

One of the biggest things you learn in school is how to deal with people, and I think our schools should be doing more to teach communication, teamwork, learning to be social, and how to cook/sew/clean, etc.

Other than the cooking/sewing/etc., music is known to teach and reinforce all of those qualities.

Yet, most adults in the US can only read at the 7th grade level and about half flat-out CAN'T READ (ie actually understand) an 8th grade level fiction book.

There's more nuance than you give credit.

Nationwide, in 2022 79% of adults are considered "literate." Yes, the average American reads at a 7th-8th grade level. Without digging deeper, I note that this statistic says "average American," not "American adult." It includes children, which is not the bulk of the population, but will still skew that average towards the lower end. Adults who don't continue to read won't maintain or improve reading skills, and there are many American adults whose lives just don't involve reading on a level that is higher.

High schoolers are now graduating at an even lower level than that. For example, only about 30% of 11th graders in Illinois were considered proficient in reading on the most recent SAT.

If we eliminate 2020 and beyond, when the pandemic closed down schools, the national trend for literacy has been generally improving since the 1970s. Mathematics have only experienced a downward trend during the pandemic.

Time will tell how those missing years of school will affect those students long term, but it's not fair to look at the last couple of years and draw a broad conclusion that this is a long term trend. It's already been pointed out that the pandemic has hurt musical literacy skills as well. I suspect that many of the students who are asking today, "How does this go?" are dealing with a similar pandemic slump.

I'm not sure the SAT is designed to test reading "proficiency," but is instead designed to test reading comprehension skills that are considered to be predictors of college success (there's a difference between the two). And keep in mind that the SAT is scored on a bell curve. I'm not sure where you got that 30% figure, but I suspect that's just the lower end of the bell curve. That doesn't necessarily mean that those students are not proficient readers (certainly some aren't), but that they scored below average on that particular test at that particular time. Another way to look at this is that 49% of students who took the SAT scored below average, QED.

But yes, the U.S. educational system can use some improvements. I would like to see us do better too.

Dave

[afugate]

After that, reading and writing opens up the world to everyone. If you can read and write at a high level, and enjoy it, you can teach yourself almost any subject without a teacher. Yet, most adults in the US can only read at the 7th grade level and about half flat-out CAN'T READ (ie actually understand) an 8th grade level fiction book. High schoolers are now graduating at an even lower level than that. For example, only about 30% of 11th graders in Illinois were considered proficient in reading on the most recent SAT.

Side Bar
To my knowledge, the SAT is not used as a proficiency testing instrument. It's likely that this actually references the NAEP/NCES reading proficiency scores. NAEP scores are generally what is discussed when one hears someone talking about reading proficiency.

To that point: A reading score of "Proficient" in the NAEP/NCES does not mean what most people assume it means. It does not mean a kid can read at grade level. Reading at grade level equates to an NAEP/NCES rating of "basic." Proficient means they read above grade level.

NAEP levels and their rough letter grade approximations are:
● Advanced: A
● Proficient: B
● Basic: C
● Below Basic: D/F

(Removes Pedant's hat)
--Andy in OKC

[atopper333]

One of the biggest things you learn in school is how to deal with people, and I think our schools should be doing more to teach communication, teamwork, learning to be social, and how to cook/sew/clean, etc. Japan actually has a pretty good system for teaching home economics - kids get assigned cleaning duties in the class and cooking duties in the cafeteria (it's not a class, you just do it).

I do appreciate the elaboration. On that note, I know very little about the Japanese education system. Is band integrated into learning at a certain level or is it treated as an elective? If treated as an elective, does it only become an option at a certain level or after the student shows proficiency in other subjects?

I only ask as this seems to be a way of making sure students have a certain skill set prior to them taking on tasks such as learning music, and that would make sense as the student would have demonstrated the fundamentals necessary for the task.

I guess to me, learning to read sheet music is a task which requires discipline and self initiative more than it does time in class as that was the system I was raised in, and now, with the resources available online to assist with learning, it seems to me to come down to how important is the music and the ability to understand it to the student (at any level). If it’s important…they will push themselves…if not…then not…

[robcat2075]

I see posts in other trombone forums at least once a week where someone posts a photo of a piece of music asking "How does this go?".

First question, other trombone forum? I didn't realize there really was another.

There are numerous trombone Facebook groups and probably on other social media also.

There is a Bass Trombone group that has 10,000+ members. Are there even 10,000 bass trombones in the world?