APS - Symphonic Band marching band requirement

[Anonymous]

My high school had the same requirement, and it’s clear that the only reason it was mandatory was that If they had made it voluntary no one would have done it. People defending the policy need to ask themselves why, if marching band is such a valuable experience, it has to be a compulsory requirement attached to something only tangentially related. Kids taking AP English aren’t required to write for the school paper, and as others have said, you can take a theater class without having to be in the school play.

There’s only three questions here that matter: 1) what makes marching band such a uniquely valuable experience that it must be mandatory? 2) if it’s such a uniquely valuable experience, wouldn’t compulsion be unnecessary? 3) Do you think it makes the marching band better or worse to have it filled with people who don’t actually want to be there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My high school had the same requirement, and it’s clear that the only reason it was mandatory was that If they had made it voluntary no one would have done it. People defending the policy need to ask themselves why, if marching band is such a valuable experience, it has to be a compulsory requirement attached to something only tangentially related. Kids taking AP English aren’t required to write for the school paper, and as others have said, you can take a theater class without having to be in the school play.

There’s only three questions here that matter: 1) what makes marching band such a uniquely valuable experience that it must be mandatory? 2) if it’s such a uniquely valuable experience, wouldn’t compulsion be unnecessary? 3) Do you think it makes the marching band better or worse to have it filled with people who don’t actually want to be there?

If they didn't actually want to be there, marching bands would be all 9th graders and all of the older students would have quit rather than sign up again the next year and the next year and the next year.

But from the outside, it doesn't sound appealing so if it weren't required, people wouldn't sign up for it and wouldn't ever know that they wanted to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My high school had the same requirement, and it’s clear that the only reason it was mandatory was that If they had made it voluntary no one would have done it. People defending the policy need to ask themselves why, if marching band is such a valuable experience, it has to be a compulsory requirement attached to something only tangentially related. Kids taking AP English aren’t required to write for the school paper, and as others have said, you can take a theater class without having to be in the school play.

There’s only three questions here that matter: 1) what makes marching band such a uniquely valuable experience that it must be mandatory? 2) if it’s such a uniquely valuable experience, wouldn’t compulsion be unnecessary? 3) Do you think it makes the marching band better or worse to have it filled with people who don’t actually want to be there?

If they didn't actually want to be there, marching bands would be all 9th graders and all of the older students would have quit rather than sign up again the next year and the next year and the next year.

But from the outside, it doesn't sound appealing so if it weren't required, people wouldn't sign up for it and wouldn't ever know that they wanted to do it.

But it is not required everywhere and it does exist in places where it's not required, it just may not be as good or as big. We don't have similar rules to push kids to try other things, so why marching band?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tough titties to those of you who balk at your kid having to do marching band.

It is a way to ensure that kids are committed to both bands. Many kids think band is something they can skip out on. If you're serious about symphonic band, you would do marching band.

Marching band is treated like a varsity sport. It requires mandatory commitment.

I think what the previous WL band director did was brilliant! Win-win because both bands were great!

Except we don't do this for anything else. Kids can take AP calculus without being on the math team, AP physics without being on the robotics team, why this major extracurricular requirement for advanced band when there is nothing analogous for anything else? What is worst that could happen -- school wouldn't have a marching band? If not enough kids want to do it, maybe that is a fine outcome.

Exactly.

Kids are always expected to show up for music performances. You don't take orchestra and skip the concert. It should just be renamed in the course catalog as We Symphonic/Marching band.

Can someone explain why OP's French horn playing daughter can't play with the school orchestra? That seems like the obvious solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tough titties to those of you who balk at your kid having to do marching band.

It is a way to ensure that kids are committed to both bands. Many kids think band is something they can skip out on. If you're serious about symphonic band, you would do marching band.

Marching band is treated like a varsity sport. It requires mandatory commitment.

I think what the previous WL band director did was brilliant! Win-win because both bands were great!

Except we don't do this for anything else. Kids can take AP calculus without being on the math team, AP physics without being on the robotics team, why this major extracurricular requirement for advanced band when there is nothing analogous for anything else? What is worst that could happen -- school wouldn't have a marching band? If not enough kids want to do it, maybe that is a fine outcome.

Exactly.

Kids are always expected to show up for music performances. You don't take orchestra and skip the concert. It should just be renamed in the course catalog as We Symphonic/Marching band.

Can someone explain why OP's French horn playing daughter can't play with the school orchestra? That seems like the obvious solution.

Does W-L have a symphonic orchestra?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tough titties to those of you who balk at your kid having to do marching band.

It is a way to ensure that kids are committed to both bands. Many kids think band is something they can skip out on. If you're serious about symphonic band, you would do marching band.

Marching band is treated like a varsity sport. It requires mandatory commitment.

I think what the previous WL band director did was brilliant! Win-win because both bands were great!

Except we don't do this for anything else. Kids can take AP calculus without being on the math team, AP physics without being on the robotics team, why this major extracurricular requirement for advanced band when there is nothing analogous for anything else? What is worst that could happen -- school wouldn't have a marching band? If not enough kids want to do it, maybe that is a fine outcome.

Exactly.

Kids are always expected to show up for music performances. You don't take orchestra and skip the concert. It should just be renamed in the course catalog as We Symphonic/Marching band.

Can someone explain why OP's French horn playing daughter can't play with the school orchestra? That seems like the obvious solution.

Does W-L have a symphonic orchestra?

No the "orchestra" is just a strings ensemble.

Given the demands of her music commitments already and the homework time required (assuming she's taking a good number of intensified classes), she probably doesn't have time to commit to marching band anyway. So, picking a different elective sounds like the better choice. Other music options could be learning a string instrument with orchestra, learning guitar, or sing in chorus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tough titties to those of you who balk at your kid having to do marching band.

It is a way to ensure that kids are committed to both bands. Many kids think band is something they can skip out on. If you're serious about symphonic band, you would do marching band.

Marching band is treated like a varsity sport. It requires mandatory commitment.

I think what the previous WL band director did was brilliant! Win-win because both bands were great!

Except we don't do this for anything else. Kids can take AP calculus without being on the math team, AP physics without being on the robotics team, why this major extracurricular requirement for advanced band when there is nothing analogous for anything else? What is worst that could happen -- school wouldn't have a marching band? If not enough kids want to do it, maybe that is a fine outcome.

Highest level school orchestras can have similar requirements, in that they meet outside of school hours. The time commitment is not nearly the same, however.

Exactly it is not nearly the same. Why ask more of band kids? It seems arbitrary.

Extra concert/symphonic band/symphony practices are akin to homework for other classes. Marching band is one credit hour and has many benefits, whether anti-banders believe it or not.

OP here, the issue isn't that marching band has benefits - I am sure it does. The issue is that DC is already part of a regional orchestra that also has benefits and doesn't want to give that up (it is 4 hours of practice each Saturday) so now she can't participate in the appropriate level of school band. I talked to her again, she is just going to skip school band altogether. She may decide to add another instrument at some point but she would prefer to do that via private lessons and independent practice instead of a lower-level school band where she is stuck playing music she doesn't like.

It’s a great opportunity to diversify her skills and try something non-music related

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My high school had the same requirement, and it’s clear that the only reason it was mandatory was that If they had made it voluntary no one would have done it. People defending the policy need to ask themselves why, if marching band is such a valuable experience, it has to be a compulsory requirement attached to something only tangentially related. Kids taking AP English aren’t required to write for the school paper, and as others have said, you can take a theater class without having to be in the school play.

There’s only three questions here that matter: 1) what makes marching band such a uniquely valuable experience that it must be mandatory? 2) if it’s such a uniquely valuable experience, wouldn’t compulsion be unnecessary? 3) Do you think it makes the marching band better or worse to have it filled with people who don’t actually want to be there?

If they didn't actually want to be there, marching bands would be all 9th graders and all of the older students would have quit rather than sign up again the next year and the next year and the next year.

But from the outside, it doesn't sound appealing so if it weren't required, people wouldn't sign up for it and wouldn't ever know that they wanted to do it.

What in the world? I was in Marching band in high school - non compulsory for all 4 years - and had the time of my life, alongside hundreds of my peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tough titties to those of you who balk at your kid having to do marching band.

It is a way to ensure that kids are committed to both bands. Many kids think band is something they can skip out on. If you're serious about symphonic band, you would do marching band.

Marching band is treated like a varsity sport. It requires mandatory commitment.

I think what the previous WL band director did was brilliant! Win-win because both bands were great!

Except we don't do this for anything else. Kids can take AP calculus without being on the math team, AP physics without being on the robotics team, why this major extracurricular requirement for advanced band when there is nothing analogous for anything else? What is worst that could happen -- school wouldn't have a marching band? If not enough kids want to do it, maybe that is a fine outcome.

Exactly.

Kids are always expected to show up for music performances. You don't take orchestra and skip the concert. It should just be renamed in the course catalog as We Symphonic/Marching band.

Can someone explain why OP's French horn playing daughter can't play with the school orchestra? That seems like the obvious solution.

Does W-L have a symphonic orchestra?

No the "orchestra" is just a strings ensemble.

Given the demands of her music commitments already and the homework time required (assuming she's taking a good number of intensified classes), she probably doesn't have time to commit to marching band anyway. So, picking a different elective sounds like the better choice. Other music options could be learning a string instrument with orchestra, learning guitar, or sing in chorus.

Wow. That's super disappointing for a school district as large and well resourced as APS. Even my dinky high school had a real orchestra program. They really need to shake up the leadership for the music program. It's embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tough titties to those of you who balk at your kid having to do marching band.

It is a way to ensure that kids are committed to both bands. Many kids think band is something they can skip out on. If you're serious about symphonic band, you would do marching band.

Marching band is treated like a varsity sport. It requires mandatory commitment.

I think what the previous WL band director did was brilliant! Win-win because both bands were great!

Except we don't do this for anything else. Kids can take AP calculus without being on the math team, AP physics without being on the robotics team, why this major extracurricular requirement for advanced band when there is nothing analogous for anything else? What is worst that could happen -- school wouldn't have a marching band? If not enough kids want to do it, maybe that is a fine outcome.

Highest level school orchestras can have similar requirements, in that they meet outside of school hours. The time commitment is not nearly the same, however.

Exactly it is not nearly the same. Why ask more of band kids? It seems arbitrary.

Extra concert/symphonic band/symphony practices are akin to homework for other classes. Marching band is one credit hour and has many benefits, whether anti-banders believe it or not.

OP here, the issue isn't that marching band has benefits - I am sure it does. The issue is that DC is already part of a regional orchestra that also has benefits and doesn't want to give that up (it is 4 hours of practice each Saturday) so now she can't participate in the appropriate level of school band. I talked to her again, she is just going to skip school band altogether. She may decide to add another instrument at some point but she would prefer to do that via private lessons and independent practice instead of a lower-level school band where she is stuck playing music she doesn't like.

Glad your daughter made the decision and is good with it!
FWIW, I think the argument about benefits came as the original discussion devolved....not any part of trying to convince you about your daughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My high school had the same requirement, and it’s clear that the only reason it was mandatory was that If they had made it voluntary no one would have done it. People defending the policy need to ask themselves why, if marching band is such a valuable experience, it has to be a compulsory requirement attached to something only tangentially related. Kids taking AP English aren’t required to write for the school paper, and as others have said, you can take a theater class without having to be in the school play.

There’s only three questions here that matter: 1) what makes marching band such a uniquely valuable experience that it must be mandatory? 2) if it’s such a uniquely valuable experience, wouldn’t compulsion be unnecessary? 3) Do you think it makes the marching band better or worse to have it filled with people who don’t actually want to be there?

If they didn't actually want to be there, marching bands would be all 9th graders and all of the older students would have quit rather than sign up again the next year and the next year and the next year.

But from the outside, it doesn't sound appealing so if it weren't required, people wouldn't sign up for it and wouldn't ever know that they wanted to do it.

I think there's a lot of truth there.
I know of many kids who had no real interest but they tried it one season (either by choice or by parental "force") and never stopped. It's not for everyone and, IME, those who really aren't into it ultimately quit at some point - whether to participate in some other sport, to be able to take another elective before they graduate, or because they just didn't want to do band. Similar to a lot of "crew" stories I hear....urged to give it a try and found their niche socially, and confidence and growth personally.

We are one of those "by force" families. Our middle schooler became very isolated and had no other extracurricular activity. Going into high school, they still had not chosen a group or activity to try; so we insisted on one season of marching band. They found a group of friends along with an activity they enjoy so much they are continuing it in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tough titties to those of you who balk at your kid having to do marching band.

It is a way to ensure that kids are committed to both bands. Many kids think band is something they can skip out on. If you're serious about symphonic band, you would do marching band.

Marching band is treated like a varsity sport. It requires mandatory commitment.

I think what the previous WL band director did was brilliant! Win-win because both bands were great!

Except we don't do this for anything else. Kids can take AP calculus without being on the math team, AP physics without being on the robotics team, why this major extracurricular requirement for advanced band when there is nothing analogous for anything else? What is worst that could happen -- school wouldn't have a marching band? If not enough kids want to do it, maybe that is a fine outcome.

Exactly.

Kids are always expected to show up for music performances. You don't take orchestra and skip the concert. It should just be renamed in the course catalog as We Symphonic/Marching band.

Can someone explain why OP's French horn playing daughter can't play with the school orchestra? That seems like the obvious solution.

Does W-L have a symphonic orchestra?

No the "orchestra" is just a strings ensemble.

Given the demands of her music commitments already and the homework time required (assuming she's taking a good number of intensified classes), she probably doesn't have time to commit to marching band anyway. So, picking a different elective sounds like the better choice. Other music options could be learning a string instrument with orchestra, learning guitar, or sing in chorus.

Wow. That's super disappointing for a school district as large and well resourced as APS. Even my dinky high school had a real orchestra program. They really need to shake up the leadership for the music program. It's embarrassing.

I went to an affluent Southern CA high School with a large, very well regarded music program and it was the same - band and a separate string orchestra. Seems pretty typical. Otherwise you are dividing up your band instrument players across two groups. Alternatively, you have one group that is a full orchestra but that seems less common at high schools. Might have to do it with a smaller music program which might be why your "dinky high School" did it that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My high school had the same requirement, and it’s clear that the only reason it was mandatory was that If they had made it voluntary no one would have done it. People defending the policy need to ask themselves why, if marching band is such a valuable experience, it has to be a compulsory requirement attached to something only tangentially related. Kids taking AP English aren’t required to write for the school paper, and as others have said, you can take a theater class without having to be in the school play.

There’s only three questions here that matter: 1) what makes marching band such a uniquely valuable experience that it must be mandatory? 2) if it’s such a uniquely valuable experience, wouldn’t compulsion be unnecessary? 3) Do you think it makes the marching band better or worse to have it filled with people who don’t actually want to be there?

Unique:
It isn't mandatory. It is only mandatory if you enroll in symphonic band. You don't have to sign-up for symphonic band. Just like you don't have to sign-up for AP Calculus or AP Lit.
Again, it is for academic credit; so the other comparisons people keep making are not the same. You enroll in "Marching band." You don't enroll in track and field.
Marching band significantly improves skills beyond what you get in just a band class. So it benefits the concert bands in turn.

Compulsion unnecessary:
Most team activities are unique and students' experiences in them unique. But society/culture here apparently values those things more and bills them as fun. Whereas people look at the requirements for marching band and only think "work, effort, time." (It's only for the first quarter, folks - probably the easiest time of year to have a time-consuming activity beyond the school day).

Compulsion clearly isn't necessary in college - all those big bands at the football games are not draftees. So clearly there is interest. Interest which is developed before going to college, developed mainly from high school programs that encourage it.

Better or worse:
Marching band is NOT filled with people who don't want to be there. The majority of those who don't want to be there - aren't. They don't do band. They stay in concert band. They quit. But the people who stay, even if they aren't the most enthusiastic, are better for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My high school had the same requirement, and it’s clear that the only reason it was mandatory was that If they had made it voluntary no one would have done it. People defending the policy need to ask themselves why, if marching band is such a valuable experience, it has to be a compulsory requirement attached to something only tangentially related. Kids taking AP English aren’t required to write for the school paper, and as others have said, you can take a theater class without having to be in the school play.

There’s only three questions here that matter: 1) what makes marching band such a uniquely valuable experience that it must be mandatory? 2) if it’s such a uniquely valuable experience, wouldn’t compulsion be unnecessary? 3) Do you think it makes the marching band better or worse to have it filled with people who don’t actually want to be there?

Judging by the sizes of the bands in Arlington, I don't think they're full of kids who don't want to be in them. The YHS and WL bands have shrunk significantly the past few years. Meanwhile, WHS' marching band has grown to be the largest.
Yorktown has what - 70ish?
WL - the largest high school in Arlington - about the same or less?
Wakefield has about 100. Not all of them are in symphonic band, and one is even on the football team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My high school had the same requirement, and it’s clear that the only reason it was mandatory was that If they had made it voluntary no one would have done it. People defending the policy need to ask themselves why, if marching band is such a valuable experience, it has to be a compulsory requirement attached to something only tangentially related. Kids taking AP English aren’t required to write for the school paper, and as others have said, you can take a theater class without having to be in the school play.

There’s only three questions here that matter: 1) what makes marching band such a uniquely valuable experience that it must be mandatory? 2) if it’s such a uniquely valuable experience, wouldn’t compulsion be unnecessary? 3) Do you think it makes the marching band better or worse to have it filled with people who don’t actually want to be there?

Judging by the sizes of the bands in Arlington, I don't think they're full of kids who don't want to be in them. The YHS and WL bands have shrunk significantly the past few years. Meanwhile, WHS' marching band has grown to be the largest.
Yorktown has what - 70ish?
WL - the largest high school in Arlington - about the same or less?
Wakefield has about 100. Not all of them are in symphonic band, and one is even on the football team.

For bands and orchestras, at all levels, locally and across the country, it's hard to overstate the negative impact of the pandemic.