TubeNet

I'm tired of incompetent and/or misinformed music educators. What sense does it make to have one of the largest and hardest to manage tubas for a 6th grader to play? and if that's not enough, let's put a Helleburg in and make it that much more difficult. Who is at fault? I haven't dealt directly with any music educator who was an idiot, they usually just don't know any better. Once I explain why I think a YBB-321 with a Helleburg mouthpiece isn't a good idea for a 6th grader it makes sense to them.

Where are we, as a tuba community, messing up. Why don't sales people not know that a YBB-321 isn't a tuba to start a 6th grader on? Why have I read articles and seen presentations by very credible music educators who have mouthpiece choices divided in to beginner, intermediate, and advanced categories for every brass instrument except tuba where Helleburg is the "one size fits all". It pains me to have a kid struggling to see any form of success on the instrument I enjoy so much because their equipment is hindering progress.

Where did the idea of "bigger is better" tubas (like the St. Pete and the YBB-321) and the "one size fits all" Helleburg mouthpiece come from?

I'm not trying to defend or degrade any music educators, their job is hard enough. Just a couple of thoughts. First, I agree with you . . . the YBB-321 is a little bit tall for most 6th graders. At the same time, though, funds are limited, and at least it has four valves. If the student plays for a few years on it, it will also give him/her something to grow on. As far as the mouthpiece goes, I don't necessarily think that beginners need to start on a smaller mouthpiece. I think a mouthpiece should be like a new pair of shoes: Don't get one that's too small and think that it will stretch, and don't get one too big that flops around and hinders your forward movement. To me, any moderate-dimensioned mouthpiece is probably a good beginner mouthpiece. Absent a good selection of mouthpieces to choose from, some ability to play on the part of the student, and experienced "tuba ears" to hear the student, it's a bit of a crap shoot. Most band directors aren't tuba players, and don't have the cash and time to outfit each individual student perfectly.
Shoot, way back in '81 when I started to play tuba in the fourth grade, we had a couple of ancient, patches-on-patches three-banger Olds BBb's we used to learn the basics on. Four of us shared a banged-up Bach 24AW mouthpiece (which we washed out after taking our turn) and we were so little we had to set the tuba on a five-gallon bucket just to reach the mouthpiece. But we did it, and we were happy as little clams. . .

Yes, we also walked to school in blizzards, uphill both ways.

my concern with the Helleburg is more the design rather than the size. In my experience/opinion, the Helleburg design requires a large amount of efficiency of the embouchure. Beginners need something with a strong bowl that will "help" a buzz. And it's not the height of the YBB-321, it's the sheer size. Give the poor kid who weighs 50 lbs a chance to play a note somewhere close to as loud as the trumpet players.

Would any educator give a trombone student a Joe Alessi 1 mouthpiece on a Bach 42 or any other .547" bore horn?

What about starting a trumpet on a 1 1/4C mouthpiece and hoping they can play a "healthy" high C by the time they graduate from college.

ThomasP wrote:my concern with the Helleburg is more the design rather than the size. In my experience/opinion, the Helleburg design requires a large amount of efficiency of the embouchure. Beginners need something with a strong bowl that will "help" a buzz. And it's not the height of the YBB-321, it's the sheer size. Give the poor kid who weighs 50 lbs a chance to play a note somewhere close to as loud as the trumpet players.

Would any educator give a trombone student a Joe Alessi 1 mouthpiece on a Bach 42 or any other .547" bore horn?

What about starting a trumpet on a 1 1/4C mouthpiece and hoping they can play a "healthy" high C by the time they graduate from college.

Shoot, if we want to give young students a fighting chance, why don't we start them off on F like they do in Germany or Hungary? Or on EEb like in Britain? More than half of what you're talking about has everything to do with the size (and therefore lung capacity) of the player.
When I was playing trumpet, I did start out on a Bach 1, just because of the formation of my teeth and lips. Depends on the player. Ideally, we wouldn't shoehorn anyone into a "beginner mouthpiece" mentality.
IMHO, a lot of this "beginner" and "step up" mentality is directly related to marketing. Sell more horns/mouthpieces. Sure, parents make out a little if junior doesn't stick with his instrument, but if the kid is serious, they probably would have been better off to buy as much quality as they can afford. Beginner instruments can create their own problems, too, in the way of frustration for young players.
BTW, what happened today to get you all 'rialed up? Have you thought of putting together some recommendations for the educators in the area? I think that would be a great idea, and probably would help future students, too.

I see that someone else shares my pain...

And for advising some of the band directors...I specifically recommended the new small miraphone 282 tubas and Jupiter 4 valve front action tubas to a director. I went in a couple weeks later to see new St. Pete's. I played one cause I didn't bring a tuba one day, horrible valves and the things were freaking brand new!

bloke wrote:Middle school kids need medium-small - to - small THREE valve tubas. Front-action is preferable, but (unfortunately) most tubas this size are top-action.

I sure get the idea most Tubenet readers would prefer front action, for themselves, but don't top pistons enjoy some advantages for grade school? Like rotary valves are too vulnerable, those front action valve stems are just looking for a door frame or something to smack into, where the top action stems are a little more out of harm's way. I don't know how small you have to be to have problems reaching around to play front valves at a comfortable angle, but maybe in early grades that could be a problem.

bloke wrote:King and Conn sousaphones (OK...metal *OR* fiberglass) sound better than many econo/school-grade 4/4-size 4-valve tubas.

I started playing tuba in the 7th grade on a plastic King sousaphone, in a Wenger chair, with a Bach 24AW mouthpiece. An 18 would have been a better choice, but I agree that a mouthpiece with more cup gives a beginner more to work with in terms of resistance. I had no trouble learning to use the fourth valve (and even the fifth) when the time came. That time was many years later, when I could afford to buy my own tuba.

I played a three-valve, non-compensating Besson in all-city bands and in college for the one year I played before my long break from playing. Neither I, nor my band director, nor solo contest judges found the lack of a fourth valve to be a limitation, though I did have to learn how to play low C's in tune. I did not play professional literature, but then I still don't, for the most part. I did play music that was demanding by high-school standards, though.

When we focus too much on the equipment we buy our kids, we teach them that the equipment is all-important. Then, we spend the rest of our lives disclaiming the importance of equipment. We reap what we sow.

The size of the Yamaha 321 is a physical thing--it's awkward and uncomfortable for grownups. An Olds O-99 (RIP) would work better for young'uns. But I had no trouble keeping up with the 7th-grade trumpet section (all 15 of them) with that plastic King, so I have a hard time thinking it was too big. (I was not, however, a 50-pound sixth-grader.)

(No, top-action tubas are not more durable. When they tip over, as they surely will, the whole valve body is often tweaked, jamming the valves. And major disassembly is required to do any valve work on them.)

Rick "whose musician niece didn't own her own instrument until her fourth year in college as a performance major" Denney

Donn wrote:

bloke wrote:Middle school kids need medium-small - to - small THREE valve tubas. Front-action is preferable, but (unfortunately) most tubas this size are top-action.

I sure get the idea most Tubenet readers would prefer front action, for themselves, but don't top pistons enjoy some advantages for grade school? Like rotary valves are too vulnerable, those front action valve stems are just looking for a door frame or something to smack into, where the top action stems are a little more out of harm's way. I don't know how small you have to be to have problems reaching around to play front valves at a comfortable angle, but maybe in early grades that could be a problem.

If the student is in elementary school, then I think a problem might be possible, but I believe any 6th-grader can effectively handle a small, top-action, three-valve (as in, not the Yamaha 321) horn.

bloke wrote:Middle school band directors don't need to start more than two (alto) saxophone players each year - *regardless* of however-many beginner students there are in however-many beginner classes in a given school.

Finally! Someone else has said out loud what I have been saying for years.
...and if you can't make the thing sound like Paul Desmond, play something else.

ThomasP wrote:I'm tired of incompetent and/or misinformed music educators. What sense does it make to have one of the largest and hardest to manage tubas for a 6th grader to play?...
...Where did the idea of "bigger is better" tubas

My band director gave me a Holton BB-345 to play on in 6-8 grade and I loved every moment of it. What's wrong with big tubas?

Rick Denney wrote:When we focus too much on the equipment we buy our kids, we teach them that the equipment is all-important. Then, we spend the rest of our lives disclaiming the importance of equipment. We reap what we sow.

This is very true.

It is a function of the last 20 or so years of a prosperous economy tied with a lack of work ethic.

My high school had three valve King 2340's. We were a solid band, best in the county (of 17 high schools), and all of us knew the kings were better than the YBB-321, in just about every measurable way. My band director did work to get decent players better horns, but he had connections with the local repair guys and found good used horns for the better players if they were interested in upgrading. Kids with richer parents could buy w/e they wanted, but the band director really went out of his way to help the kids on the margin. If kids were buying new, he would normally recommend "intermediate" line instruments, but was fairly vocal about lessons being far more important than a horn.

15 years later, most band directors are scared witless from booster/parent organizations, are armed with little to no practical knowledge, and have few resources at the college level to fall back on. Parents feel the need to keep up with the Joneses vicariously through their kids, and will buy them w/e they want to keep them quiet.

I admit to getting some nice equipment from my folks, but I bet few kids today were mowing an acre of grass at the age of 6 or helping their folks clear acres of growth. I never got paid for that stuff in dollars, but my parents would get something they felt invested in my future. They bought me a 186 BBb in high school for <$4000, made me practice and I took lessons, and it paid off in $$$$$ worth of scholarships. However, they were only willing to make the investment once I had proven (through talking with the director and my appointment to various all-county, regional student orchestra, and other groups) that my playing was sufficient to warrant an investment.

Unfortunately, most music education majors now have very little understanding that the horn does little in terms of performance. They see someone with a "neat" horn and think that is the solution. My best horn was a 188-5U with its share of bumps and bruises, and their were people that looked at that partially lacquer-stripped horn and thought my playing would be on par with it. Luckily I was able to so otherwise on a few occasions. But the "newer is better" philosophy sticks hard with those who don't like to practice, and that trickles down to music ed majors. So for the students they teach to get better, they need better horns.

In regards to current education curriculum, it seems that most of the degree is on the theory end of education and far too short on the applied end. Most music educators are not taught to go out and teach, they are instead taught to go out and get the next degree. Music is not the sole problem here. Every subject is effected. While I was teaching Math (with no math degree, but substantial knowledge in the area), I ran across many "educators" that had a huge problem articulating basic math skills and could not describe general real world applications of the lessons being taught. When they asked me for advice (as was directed to them often by the principal on numerous occasions without their solicitation) I was heavy on the part about focusing on content as the core of application of the curriculum, and not the "development of the student" gibberish that addresses their emotional and physical state. Educators have far too little time to account for the Maslow development stage of 100+ students. Instead they need to focus on why the content is important. In other words, kids in band need to learn about music, the transferability of these skills, and have the seed planted for further interest. Instead, many directors are left trying to build esoteric principles into the curriculum and make the students feel "good" about band, which often works quickly with a shiny new horn. Think about what would motivate most kids more in today's society: Playing a grade 6 with accuracy, or holding shiny new horns in their hands.

I'm sure you know the answer, which is why band directors make silly suggestions.

While not in disagreement with the idea of this thread I have some practical points:

1) You cannot expect a non-tuba playing band director to know these things if he hasn't been told (heck, we can't agree on stuff and we all play tuba).
2) You cannot expect the band director to have been told to do this if his college "music educator" faculty never taught secondary school.
3) You cannot expect the band director to implement this without a budget.
4) You cannot expect the band directors to implement any of this while they are understaffed, underappreciated, over-scheduled and underpaid.
5) You cannot expect the band director to have this as an ongoing project when he realizes that lawyers don't work as hard and make more money - then quits.

This is not a universal application response but it fits 90% of schools.

When I was a young band director, at a state meeting they asked for a show of hands from first year band directors - lots of hands, then second year band directors - lots of hands, etc. Until the call for five years experience; from that point on there were one or two hands per year.

I am extremely proud to say have several fine students who lasted longer as teachers than I.

bloke wrote:

Rick Denney wrote: When we focus too much on the equipment we buy our kids, we teach them that the equipment is all-important. Then, we spend the rest of our lives disclaiming the importance of equipment. We reap what we sow.

As instrumental music enthusiasts WE do not need to abuse taxpayers any more than mindless sports enthusiasts should abuse US with their government-financed stadium-building tyranny.

I have to particularly agree with these two statements.

Bob1062 wrote:

jonesbrass wrote:Shoot, if we want to give young students a fighting chance, why don't we start them off on F like they do in Germany or Hungary? Or on EEb like in Britain? More than half of what you're talking about has everything to do with the size (and therefore lung capacity) of the player.

bloke wrote:Middle school kids need medium-small - to - small THREE valve tubas. Front-action is preferable, but (unfortunately) most tubas this size are top-action.

I have always thought that the combination of these 2 were RIGHT under King's (surely the biggest domestic supplier of tubas), and ours, noses.

Got it even easier than that.

I have an Amati 3v Eb horn in the front room. It even has "Boston Public Schools 1974" engraved neatly on the underside of the bell flair. This is a horn that sells for about $1600 at WWBW. It's easy to handle, doesn't have much of a low end and the highest range is difficult to play in tune but the midrange is bitchin' and in tune. Sounds like a great horn for a beginner. They make a F and a BBb in the same form factor (Probably the same parts with a little chopped for the F and a couple o' branches added for the BBb) and price.

People want to 'do what's best' for their kids and that means a new horn even the kid really needs lessons instead. But the parents don't know that.

bloke’s first posting is good, and I agree with most.

Horns could be single Bb for ease of weight and further between partials in the relevant range.

Trombones really shall be no wider than .500. The Yamaha 354 is an excellent beginner’s trombone.

bloke cites price reasons to avoid compensating euphs. I would add that weight and playing resistance also point towards non-compers.

I don’t know the school repertory in the US. But my personal experience is, that relevant music may be made with euphs as basses during the entry levels, so that tuba players can be started on euphs.

Klaus

LJV wrote:Have at it, Hoss(es)!

That gig is NO walk in the park!

Don't misunderstand. I don't in any way blame the new band director. (Older ones should know better, because they have had a chance to temper their teacher training with experience and have either chosen to learn from it or not.) And I know better than most non-teachers how much the modern Education Establishment makes good teaching difficult, and punishes good teachers.

(Oh, I feel a rant coming on. Run away now while you still have the chance. Dale, go back to sleep--you don't want to read this. Trust me.)

But that is part of the problem, and the problem is systemic. It's not the teachers, or principals, or students, or parents, or administrators, or school board members, or those who teach teachers when they are in college. It's all of these things. The Education Establishment, with ample representation from all these groups, has been allowed to establish the supremacy of education as a specialty profession in its own right, in contest with the content, because parents have measured schools on the basis of SAT scores and whether their schools adequately babysit their kids while they are at work.

Example: The Texas no-pass-no-play doctrine has had terrible unintended consequences, because it treats music programs like sports--a reward for kids who do well enough (i.e., pass) in their "academic" classes. But band directors don't do what they should to resist being classed as a mere sport. They compare their salaries with the coaches, not the teachers (for good reasons, but with consequences), they line the walls of the band room with trophies, and they brag about the latest contest results. This has been going on a long time. So, instead of music being an academic discipline that may wake up a willingness to exercise some discipline in a student who is failing language or math, it becomes the cookie that is withheld from the student who didn't eat his peas. Music should be part of the cure for a failing student, not treated as if it is the problem. Band directors have screamed this until they are blue int he face, but they often undermine their own argument by being competitive with each other just like the football coaches are.

Example within the example: Why is it that rich schools in Texas manipulate contest schedules so that they fall a week or two after the mid-term grades come out, so that the poor schools, with a high percentage of students who will be removed from band for failing an academic course, will be less competitive, having lost many of their players at the last minute? If the band directors worked together to make music part of the cure for student problems, they would not do that. Real accomplishment is the reward for disciplined work, and the Education Establishment seems to do everything it can to undermine real accomplishment.

One reason the Education Establishment does this is to make teaching a profession in its own right, so that only those who are trained and certified to be teachers will be allowed to do so. After all, the NEA, one of the principal actors of the Education Establishment, is first and foremost a teacher union. So, instead of professional mathematicians, historians, musicians, etc., who have learned to teach others what they know, we have professional teachers who are often poor amateurs in their subject area.

Example variation: If I wanted to retire from engineering and go into a high school and teach math or science (which used to happen regularly in our schools), I would be far more qualified in those subject areas than most existing teachers. And having years of experience explaining my work to lay people, I would have a big head start in learning how to teach that content. But no: I would have to start over in college to learn the entire Education Establishment theory, and then get certified. Many content experts with decades of life experiences are shut out of the education opportunity because it takes years to go through that process. That is not the fault of teachers, but it is a systemic problem and all too many teachers support it by supporting the notion that teaching must be a specialty profession in its own right. So, how has that been working out for teachers? Judging from the results, not too well. Good teachers are miserable. We reap what we sow. This is a part of the problem with band programs, and a reason why many band directors who remain act like community-band amateurs when it comes to choosing instruments. They don't know what to do (as Alex says), because knowing what to do is no longer important to their training as teachers.

I don't buy that budgets are THAT tight. Can't go with you on this one, Alex. I'm just not there. We spend more on students that most countries, and more on students than we did when any of us were in school, if we are beyond a certain age. Go back to my story: In one of the wealthiest schools in the Houston school district, I played a plastic sousaphone, both in junior and senior high school. Most band programs start in the 6th grade. Mine started in the 7th. Most suburban high schools now bring in private teachers. Very few in my school had private teachers, and those who did paid for them themselves and did so completely outside the school context. I've seen beautiful Miraphones in many a low-end school, battered to death by unappreciative students--destruction allowed by a band director who should have required the students to earn the right to play them, assuming they predated the director. My 4A (now 5A) high school had fiberglass sousaphones--three of them. The 2A high schools here in Virginia, on the low-income end of the county, are far better equipped than the 5A high school I attended in the 70's. Yet despite that poor support compared to today, I and many with whom I shared the band experience have remained active participants in making music as adults. And our involvement in music has made us better people whatever we do for a living. Isn't that the point? I don't see the connection between budgets and results.

Since I'm well into a major rant, let me add this: Most first-line universities now require applicants to have volunteered in their communities. How is it volunteering if it is required? I would have more respect for the kid who flipped burgers or stocked groceries in high school because learning the value of work for hire was a priority for his or her parents. Those are the people who will be empowered to be generous with their own money in later life. The people we see coming out of college now cannot focus on one topic for more than five minutes, and they cannot connect what they do with what they expect to earn. They stopped reading this post 163 paragraphs ago. They believe it is their employer's job to provide them a quality life, but they'll bolt to the competition for a 5% raise after two years. "Oh, the world owes me a living", used to be a joke, but who's laughing now? The generation coming up seems to value property less and covet it more.

They came by that attitude honestly, though. We taught it to them.

So, when kids are shown that work is unimportant (but that salary is all-important), that real accomplishment is not the source of personal satisfaction, that property has no value and can be taken by those who merely want it, that how they feel is more important than what they do, and that all forms of expression should be competitive, it's no wonder they grow up and buy their kids expensive stuff so that their kids will be quiet and stay out of their hair. This is not a new problem--my generation is the ME generation and the first to be so self-indulgent. My generation was also the first to be raised under the principles of Dr. Spock. We reap what we sow. It's not because of budgets, or because parents, teachers, administrators, or whoever, are evil. It's because we are selfish and we raise our kids to be the same.

Rick "you were warned" Denney

JPNirschl wrote:I think what most of you are trying to say is, we need more competent band directors.
I am in full agreement. A great deal of today's directors (aside from a few) were educated in the 70s and 80s when three factors were not taught.
1) the value of repair knowledge to a teacher.
2) the value of student line horns to a teacher's knowledge base.
3) short on experience when hired, and never got better except to get a mediocre Master's degree to advance their pay.
Without being political, I advance the theory that this is largely because of the NEA's lack of focus on practical knowledge.
I rest my case.

while I don't disagree, I think that there is a much broader disdain for practical knowledge in the public education system. In addition, at least here in california where we've had 30 years of constitutionally restricted local control on education spending, music teachers are spread thinner and thinner and have to do with less and less time with individual classes and kids.

.

Rick Denney wrote:One reason the Education Establishment does this is to make teaching a profession in its own right, so that only those who are trained and certified to be teachers will be allowed to do so. After all, the NEA, one of the principal actors of the Education Establishment, is first and foremost a teacher union. So, instead of professional mathematicians, historians, musicians, etc., who have learned to teach others what they know, we have professional teachers who are often poor amateurs in their subject area.

Example variation: If I wanted to retire from engineering and go into a high school and teach math or science (which used to happen regularly in our schools), I would be far more qualified in those subject areas than most existing teachers. And having years of experience explaining my work to lay people, I would have a big head start in learning how to teach that content. But no: I would have to start over in college to learn the entire Education Establishment theory, and then get certified. Many content experts with decades of life experiences are shut out of the education opportunity because it takes years to go through that process. That is not the fault of teachers, but it is a systemic problem and all too many teachers support it by supporting the notion that teaching must be a specialty profession in its own right. So, how has that been working out for teachers? Judging from the results, not too well. Good teachers are miserable. We reap what we sow. This is a part of the problem with band programs, and a reason why many band directors who remain act like community-band amateurs when it comes to choosing instruments. They don't know what to do (as Alex says), because knowing what to do is no longer important to their training as teachers.

Amen.

This is exactly the issue. I taught math at the high school level coming from a business background (and an MBA) and familiar with some advanced applications of statistics and some basic calculus. I passed the content area exam with "ease" and was given the green light to certification based on my undergrad degree of Music Ed. I taught an was awarded an "outstanding teacher" award for my first year of teaching. This was teaching "tough" kids, from lower economic backgrounds, language issues, etc. I had kids with gang tattoos interested in compound interest because they could see how it could benefit/harm them. But it is tough, and the environment makes it hard. You have to nod your head yes at the right times and keep quiet, and then do what you need to do in the classroom. Education has addressed every problem at hand in the system, fixed none, and created more.

Proof of your example: While teaching, my Department Chair was a retired DARPA programmer. This guy was a solid mathematician, and knew applications well beyond my knowledge. However, he was constantly under pressure to raise standardized test scores, tow the county's agenda, and conform to the administration. As a department, we did raise scores by, on average, 20% for two consecutive years (as to my knowledge as that is the length of my tenure at that school), while other subjects made little to no progress.

I recently learned that he just retired from teaching. While I do not know the specifics about the situation, my gut tells me that he was tired of fighting the good fight. While he and I joked about gross errors in the textbooks, other teachers struggled to keep kids in class, let alone in their chairs. We made sure the content was understood as being immensely important, and that the students failure to learn it carried not only short-term, but long-term consequences. I followed this up with most students by letting them know what local universities were doing (since my wife was teaching college algebra and Calc for business) to bring students up to speed for the college requirements. Many schools were making students take elementary and intermediate algebra courses (the Algebra & Geometry series revisited from high school) before they could take college algebra which was the only math requirement for some majors.

There is a parallel in the music curriculum. There were students being admitted when I was in school who could not play all 12 major scales from memory in two octaves. I was one. Luckily I had my *** kicked into gear by a fellow (now semi-famous) tubist and fixed that quickly. At least I had a few pieces of interest under my belt as a player, and some relevant orchestral experience in addition to band experience. There are many players now being admitted into music programs who are really just "marching band" musicians, and they slowly make it through the system. I witnessed players who couldn't hack through all 49 scales (12 major, 36 minor, chromatic) their senior year let alone their freshman year walk and get diplomas. They went on to teach, and might still be teaching high school band. On the other hand, there were people who entered into the music ed program, saw what a joke it was, switched to music performance, and now make solid money as professional players. It is the same in most subject areas.

Why should someone good at math deal with nonsensical and non-applicable babble about classroom theory to teach when they can go into math/engineering/comp sci and get 3x the salary in 5 years with 50% of the hassle? Hell, even my own students would ask me why I was teaching them math since I was so "good" at it. They know many of their teachers have been weak in the subject area, and when they find one who is good at it, they question why they would want to suffer with kids and a low-level salary.

LJV wrote: First, Texas sounds like a mess. I'm very surprised! I knew their pay was low (comparatively), but that sounds like the tip of the iceberg. Not too attractive!

Second, I don't think there is an Education Establishment theory that I can identify.

Yes, Texas is a mess. It's about as bad as it gets, except for most other states. I'm also familiar with Michigan, and it's far worse, especially in music. The schools around here are better than Michigan, but the approach is different from Texas and I have a hard time comparing. Probably the same sorts of problems, just different styles of school structure.

When I use the term Education Establishment, the last thing I mean is an organized cabal, like Hillary's Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. There is no conspiracy, except for the fundamental principle that schools should do what parents ought to be doing (and most parents foolishly and selfishly agree), and that teachers are the only arbiters of what should be done. And parents, having too often abdicated their own responsibilities in search of wealth and fulfillment, have reinforced that shibboleth, too. The Education Establishment is a collection of beliefs that are wrong but widely held, and not written down. Not being written down, they are unassailable, and are used to enforce foolishness without an appropriate process. This is how much political and social doctrine gets promulgated, and thus we move in the direction by degrees so small that we don't notice until the wrong direction is so entrenched that it seems right.

I guess my rant wasn't all the way over yet.

Rick "who uses Hetmans, which is probably too expensive for a 10-year teacher's pension" Denney