Maybe they should be put straight about the realities of pop music then!

Most of the well paid steady jobs in that  "industry" are in producing marketing etc., and  of the musicans in that business, those who make a good long term living tend to be session musicans and arrangers. The vast majority of these did a lot of formal musical training although many of the instrumentalists would have had private tuition  rather than got it mainly through school. The miniscule numbers of unschooled people who have got rich and famous must be balanced by the vast amount of failures. So even if you want a career in pop (as opposed to messing about in a band with a hope of hitting the big time) my mesasge would be get down to studying those scales!!

Thank you Mabeljane.  Perhaps I should have pm'd you but as you say the information may prove useful to others as well.  I understand it a lot better now thanks to you.  The whole concept makes me nervous though - I know now that he's done well and he takes any sort of tests in his stride, but generally to put 7-year olds through that sort of stress seems very unwise.  It's all very well for confident, well-adjusted and able children but they may not be the majority.  What happens in schools where the first language isn't English?  There must be many inner city schools that will be decimated by tests such as these.  After all the furore about the 11+ and children being labelled as "failures", I can't see these SATS being a forward-step.  In fact it's labelling children even younger. 

I can't tell you how much admire those who persevere in the teaching profession (I couldn't do it!) and how grateful I am to you all for the hard work and conscientiousness you all put in on a daily basis.

Just catching up with this thread! Martle has here exposed the real knub - and one that is across-the-board, but affects in particular Music in education.

My former Institution ran a number of staff seminars resulting in an institutional policy that then (and now!) actually DOES regard students as "customers". This policy was the last straw for me, and was the decisive reason why I chose to retire. What, then, are the ethical and logistical problems with this "consumerist" view (indeed one that, for example, accedes to student/parent pressures to minimise or even eradicate traditional approaches to theoretical study)?

a) As soon as an Institution divides itself into "customers" and "providers", it erects a counter at which certain people queue, and behind which certain other people position themselves to provide a "service". We see this already in educational establishments in locations such as the Library, the Registry, the Personnel Office, the Car Park. But we have not until recently subsumed this viewpoint within the actual Academic/Educational areas of activity. This is a highly retrogressive and damaging development (for reasons that will be stated below).

b) The mere existence of this counter (even as a psychological one) asserts that "Education" has now become viewed rather like a commodity in a shop - the customer pays the person positioned behind it, and in return is "given" his or her "education". While, therefore, it used to be the case that students - and students alone - were themselves responsible for their examination results, the onus of responsibility is now de iure (if not de facto) shifted towards "the provider".  This is why the paymasters now place such a high premium upon examination results as a factor in itself for determining the quality of the education provision adjudged to be present in our institutions. "The providers" have little defence for student failure under these conditions because if as "providers" they had properly provided what had been paid for (!) it is obvious that the students would have achieved better results (so the argument goes).

c) Because education is now viewed in such consumerist terms it has become literally "decadent" (i.e. in the sense that less worthwhile achievements are being encouraged at much greater cost). In order to establish and then to monitor the operation of the "them-and-us" system, a whole new and complex bureaucracy has had to be constructed at unimaginable cost. So we not only have a Quality Assurance Officer, but indeed a whole QA Department including clerical officers and their assistants all receiving large salaries and taking up valuable buildings space (that could otherwise have been used for teaching and learning). These people generate endless documents and Working Papers, and convene numerous lengthy meetings that waste endless hours of academic time that would formerly have been devoted to teaching and research. This is only ONE example out of numerous added tiers of pure bureaucracy that have now been added to our educational system (there are many others too).

d) Regarding students as "customers" actually devalues the status of both them and their teachers. It permits the "providers" with the option of closing the counter at designated times and cutting off the "educational provision" that the "customers" might wish to queue up for in order to receive (rather like the irritating propensity of Tesco to close down a checkout just at the moment when one is needed!). It also means that the discipline formerly existing whereby a student was expected to arrive for a seminar or tutorial (events that in my own student days we should never have considered under any conditions missing - if only out of duty and courtesy) have now gone to the wall. It has become very much the case that students who feel they do not "need" to come to the counter at a specific time simply do not "turn up". That has also caused the need for a further level of bureacracy - an endless system of registration and accountability, backed up with formal probationary systems, all requiring time and paperwork - seriously undermining the otherwise-assumed authority of the "customer" (we should never expect to be hauled up in front of the Tesco Manager unless we tried to remove items without paying for them should we?).

Education never used to be like this - at least in Universities! When I went to university I was admitted as a new Member of a Community. We freely interacted with our teachers, and were regarded (at least socially) as their equals. The College had it rules and regulations (much like any social unit should) and these applied to all members equally, whether staff or student. It is difficult to see how members of a community can interact meaningfully when they are divided into two distinct groups by an intervening counter that places "customers" on one side and "providers" on the other. As a teacher I feel I learnt a lot from the minds and ideas of my own students. But I did not have to queue at a counter to receive this - we worked together as partners. "Education" (from the Latin educare) was then still something that learners acquired for themselves under expert guidance, and in establishments that provided for them the human and material resources needed to provide the support required for them to succeed in their quest. It does not seem to be like that any more.

This has, of course, digressed from the main focus of this thread - but I feel there still is a tangible connection between the issues that arise in these arguments and viewpoints and the ways in which educational standards and expectations have been so drastically dumbed down in recent years. (I should never have thought all those years ago that it might ever be possible to go to a university the "read" music without there being any requirement or need to be able to read it while "reading" it!)

Baz

The bureaucracy had so taken over "the system" that when I was Head of Department I had to wait up to 3 months to receive a reply to an important educational document I had submitted to the Warden affecting changes I was proposing to the structure and content of courses we intended to offer. Since this delay meant that they could no longer be implemented for the following year - causing severe and unnecessary drain upon our meagre financial resources - I decided to undertake a covert piece of detective work in order to explain why it could possibly take 3 months to receive a reply as a Head of Department! I came up with the following scenario:

1) Document is put in my Administrator's Out Tray
2) It is collected by the internal postman
3) It is then placed in the internal posting In Tray
4) Another internal postman removes it the following morning and places it in HIS Out Tray
5) The following day yet another internal postman collects it and places it in his bag (along with 100s of others)
6) He then notes the word "Warden" so places it in another postman's In Tray
7) Another postman collects it from there and places it in his Out Tray
8 ) A further postman collects it the following day from that Out Tray and places it in his bag
9) The following day this same postman walks down to the appropriate Warden's building and places it on the counter
10) A receptionist picks it up (with several dozen others) and walk upstairs to the first floor to place it in an In Tray
11) The following morning a junior Clerical Officer takes it from that In Tray, and places it in her Out Tray
12) The next day another Clerical Officer collects it and forwards it to the Warden's Secretary's In Tray
13) The next day The Warden's Secretary places it in her Out Tray
14) The following day she then places it in the Warden's PA's In Tray
15) Next day the Warden's PA places it in her Out Tray
16) The following day The Warden's PA then places it in The Warden's own In Tray
17) Upon noticing that the content of the document has financial implication, The Warden then places it in his Out Tray marked "Director of Finance"
18) His PA then collects it and places it in her In Tray
19) Next day she places it in her Out Tray
20) Next day it is collected by an internal postman who places it in the postal In Tray
21) Then another postman moves it to somebody else's Out Tray
22) Then another postman places it (along with hundreds of others) into his bag
23) Next day he deposits it in another the Finance Building's In Tray
24) Next day it is picked up by a Junior clerical officer and placed in her In Tray
25) Next day she places it in her Out Tray
26) She then places it in the FO's PA's In Tray
27) Next day this PA places it in her own Out Tray
28) The following day she places it in the FO's In Tray
29) The next day he then opens it and reads it. He thinks about it, and arranges with his secretary a time to meet to dictate a reply
30) Some days later (when he has decided upon the reply) he dictates it, and leaves it for the Secretary to deal with
31) The Secretary then types the reply the following day, and places it in her Out Tray.....

....then - yes - the reply goes right back into the system, and is required to navigate (in reverse) exactly the same endless staircase of In and Out Trays - at each stage being dalayed by the internal posting system that adds another day each time it moves the document from one building to another - eventually reaching The Warden!

....But there is more! The Warden then has to act upon "the advice" of the Finance Officer in order to reply to me (as the originating Head of Department), so HE then arranges a meeting with HIS PA to dictate a suitable reply to ME!

....When at last this reply has been dictated (which might be within a week or two from that point only) we now know what will happen don't we?!

....Yes! His reply will now have to be navigated (in reverse) through the remaining staircase of seemingly endless In and Out Trays (each one of which will add at least a whole day to the process) as well as several times having to interact with the Internal Post system (each time adding yet a further day's delay).

...Then, and only then, will the reply eventually be received by my Department Administrator!

I speak not in jest! This is an administrative Cottage Industry that has been created! So much for "EDUCATION"!

Baz

They have - BUT: any proposal of a "formal" nature must be provided as a complete document, including business plan, risk assessment, budget projections, intake targets, staffing implications etc. etc. etc...............

Now being, therefore, a "document", it has to go before committees, be accepted by Finance, by Academic Planning Committee, by Warden's Advisory Group, and - ultimately - by the Warden himself. So email is little use here!

The bottom line, of course, is that the longer anything can be delayed by "procedure", the more money will be SAVED by the Institution! This is especially the case with academic staff appointments! If somebody leaves, full documentation, argumentation, budget analysis, and replacement rationale will have to be accepted and agreed before a replacement member of staff can even be advertised for! This strategy, while extremely damaging for the academic planning and progress of a department, can usually save the institution between 6 months' and a years' worth of salary!

That's about it now! The whole system has been deliberately swamped, drowned and strangled by carefully-escalated ADMINISTRIVIA and PROCEDURALISM designed solely to act as a relentless brake on any and all initiative (and masquerading under the guise of "transparency", "quality assurance", "academic progress" and "striving after excellence").

Little wonder, therefore, that students have now become mere "customers".

Baz