HUSTLE -- and FLOW

Been thinking about Alfie Kohn, competition and my life’s passion: music. In a recent blog, I stuck up for Alfie’s contention that there is little value in being number one in international student achievement rankings, especially since we don’t have any proof that raising our position in test-score standings will lead to an improved economy or solve any other intractable social problems. Alfie Kohn, of course, is famed for questioning a whole lot of practices that schools and teachers assume are normal, natural and constructive, beginning with gold stars and ending with getting into Princeton.

When school folks say that Alfie Kohn is interesting, but doesn’t live in the real world, I usually mention the intense Japanese focus, in elementary education, on cohesive and cooperative groups. Since Japan is not only in the real world, but one of our chief national competitors, this is a conversation-stopper. It’s not that competition is an American thing, per se—witness countless World Cup uprisings—but that our educators automatically assume that there’s no learning or conduct that can’t be enhanced by a contest (preferably if it comes with an individual reward). It’s habitual—it seems we all come pre-programmed to embrace B. F. Skinner, modifying classroom behaviors through a little low-rent psychology.

In my first 15 years as a middle school band teacher, I used all the competitive schemes, including a chairs and challenges system familiar to anyone who’s played in a school instrumental group: Teacher publicly ranks kids by playing ability. Kids challenge each other in teacher-judged playoffs to move up and down the “chair” pecking order. First chair players are designated leaders, getting solos and more interesting parts. Kids at the bottom of the ladder don’t get much beyond the opportunity to go after their classmates. The theory is that all kids will practice more, and thus improve. The reality is that most challenges and chair-hopping occur at the top of the heap; the kids down below slog along listlessly. And then drop out. 

I wish I could say I ended the challenge system because my eyes were opened to its pedagogical inefficiency and questionable morality. Actually, I just got sick of having flute players crying in my office and drummers hiding each other’s sticks to prevent last-minute cramming before a challenge. No chairs any more, I said. From now on, you’ll have assigned seats (wherein I sat kids in mixed-ability groups) and I’ll rotate the “good” parts and the harmony parts. If there are solos, anyone can try out, and we’ll all vote. Our new goals are pursuing excellence and playing amazing music. 

Almost immediately, several things happened: My band program got larger, as fewer kids quit. The kids with weaker skills improved, sitting next to stronger players and playing more challenging parts. And, in turn, my bands got better, as playing quality was more even across the group—allowing us to choose increasingly difficult and rewarding music. Kids who might have been last chair under the old system didn’t realize they were the weakest link, and signed up for solo festival, building even more personal proficiency.

And, of course, I had some complaints, from parents of former first chairs. The complaints lasted exactly as long as it took to flush the memory of chairs and challenges out of the system. And from then on—mixed seating was the norm.

That’s another thing I learned from Alfie Kohn. The principle under most competitions is: Cui bono—who benefits? Whose ox will be gored if we stop competing? And whose star might rise? When chairs disappeared from my classroom—when there was no longer a list on the wall rank-ordering my clarinet players for everyone to see—kids were free to concentrate on becoming a music-making community. 

It’s odd that competitive routines are so entrenched in school music programs. The party line on the benefits of music education is all about creativity, artistic expression and teamwork. Most music teachers, whose own fortunes in music school rose and fell on the chair system, are well aware of how uncomfortable it is to be worried about the person above or below you hawking your mistakes. It’s easy to forget about the power and pleasure of music, lost in guarding your position. 

In all creative arts, the ideal is what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls “flow”—that place where you stop thinking consciously about performance and are fully lost in the beauty and delight. Veteran jazz musicians depend on flow, a result of their deep knowledge and experience, to trigger inspiring improvisation. Flow doesn’t often happen when you’re 12 years old, but I have witnessed student musicians lose themselves in peak experiences, awestruck after a glorious final massed chord, or closing their eyes to put a little more feeling into a passage. Why would we want to distract them from something as important as that?

Comments

[Bob]

Kudos, Teach, and thanks for describing what and how you successfully changed a classroom leadership pattern. Going back, for a moment, to your previous post about where are the men, did male students and teachers respond the same as females to your seat assignments?

[Nancy Flanagan]

Good question. I think boys were relieved when the option to compete was removed. Girls were snarlier about it. Especially the flutes, who are the instrumental music equivalent of back-stabbing cheerleaders. (laughing)

And I should know--because I always had more boys than girls in my band program, running counter to the national male-female trend. This was pointed out to me by a college prof who had been invited to do a guest clinic (and had some data on gender balance in instrumental programs). He was amazed at how many boys there were in my performing groups. Boys enroll at lower rates (as band is a geeky, non-athletic activity) and drop out more quickly, it seems--every place but my band room. That supports the theory that boys don't want to compete, either, but is hardly convincing research. I never figured out why I might have more boys than the average teacher.

[Patty]

I can't wait to share your comments with teachers at my school. We are trying to find ways to promote positive behavior at our school without depending on gold stars. Everyone likes the idea of Alfie Kohn's theories but many teachers don't believe they will work. How amazing to try this with a band! BTW I am a clarinet player who quit the band after two years on third row.

[rightwingprof]

You're conveniently forgetting that the Japanese educational system is far more test-centric than our own, and on tests, the Japanese are as viciously competitive as anyone. However, all this nonsense about "cooperation, not competition" does nothing but ensure that students will not be able to cope with the university classroom, or keep a job when they get out into the real world.

Competition is what it's all about.

[Nancy Flanagan]

Actually, the testing in Japan doesn't start until the cooperative group ethic is firmly entrenched--somewhere around what we would think of as 9th grade. Didn't say that Japan wasn't fiercely competitive. It's just that they're competing in cohesive, loyal groups.

As for the university--where is it written that competition is either essential or productive in university settings? Your classroom, perhaps, but not universally. There are lots of non-competitive workplaces, as well. In fact, Deming's first principle was "drive out fear," wasn't it? Google recently opened a big new enterprise just down the road from me; one of my non-competitive trumpet players got a fabulous job there. She tells me that the first few weeks of work were dedicated to play and building cooperative relationships.

[rightwingprof]

"As for the university--where is it written that competition is either essential or productive in university settings? Your classroom, perhaps, but not universally. There are lots of non-competitive workplaces, as well."

Cite examples. There is no such thing as a non-competitive workplace. If you don't do your job, you get fired and somebody else gets the job. That is competition. Your error is in seeing competition and cooperation as mutually exlusive, which they are most certainly not. I wouldn't care much, except that I have to deal with the products of public school idiocy.

[Nancy Flanagan]

I did cite an example: Google. And lots of other innovative businesses. Businesses that focus on creating a better product/service and selling more--as opposed to crushing the competition--are quite successful these days. Perhaps you hadn't heard.

Competition and cooperation definitely aren't mutually exclusive--in any human endeavor. If you paid careful attention to my first post, I told the kids we would compete for solos, with everyone listening, then vote, with the understanding that the best solo will make the whole performance better. All kids understand, quickly, that there are differences in skill and potential. The key is to get the most of everyone's potential, without threat or punishment.

Your last sentence demeans your argument, RWP. You can do better. Good teachers take students where they are and move them along. Weak teachers complain about the teacher before them.

[Robyn Hilger]

You have put into words what I have always belived in my heart about TRUE music education. I, too, did away with the "chair" system...and took a lot of criticism from the high school band directors...still do! However, what I noticed was that kids were coming back to me saying that band was "not fun" in HS. Now, I attended those rehearsals every day and saw a lot of continuity in what I had been doing & what they were doing but I am convinced the HS director "lost" these students because of comments like "that has to be perfect tomorrow or you will lose your chair," "First row clarinets, the back row is making you look bad today," "You are first chair and should be the best but you sure don't sound like it today" and on and on and on...
Competition is good in the right context and I agree about teaching cooperation before competition.

How many band directors have complained about "that lead trumpet" that ALWAYS sticks out and doesn't know how to blend...well guess what...when it is always about proving you are the best...what do you expect?!

You can't make meaningful music without cooperation. Cooperation in tuning, blend, balance, articulation, style, tone, etc... It makes no sense to evaluate in the exact opposite way of what we actually expect students to be able to do together.

Thanks Nancy, I am always amzaed by your insights. Keep preachin' girl! :)

[Liz Kehl]

I have a few comments and questions for you....I am a string teacher, working currently in the private lesson arena. I use a balance of competition to motivate some students, and cooperation to help students learn to work together in small ensembles. I have participated and taught with the challenges system, and I look curiously at your comparisons between the Japanese examples of cooperation and also those in your own classroom. I have also witnessed the teaching of the Suzuki method which is primarily a Japanese method. Have you any ideas as to the cooperation/competitiveness in that program in Japan as well as its program in the States? I have recognized significant differences between the Suzuki classes there and here, so I can see that while Japanese students thrive in the Suzuki program, several American students I have encountered do NOT thrive in that system. Do you suppose that these American students are the norm, or are they more of an exception? Does that difference have anything to do with the competitive/cooperative styles in the Suzuki Program?

[Nancy Flanagan]

Hi Liz.
I am not a Suzuki expert by any means. I have seen Suzuki classes taught, here in the states, and they always seemed to me to be VERY much a cooperative group experience. The children are taught to listen and imitate, to take turns, to do joyful, fun things (like playing on one foot or while lying down) with their music.

I also know many school-based orchestra teachers who have a lot of trouble with kids who come into their school programs from a Suzuki background. The students' note-reading skills are usually the problem--they have been taught to use their ears and kinesthetic skills more than their visual literacy. They want to know "how does it sound?" and many American music teachers aren't willing to demonstrate, using those multiple modes of learning, valuing sight-reading above all other musical skills. That may be because sight-reading is frequently a part of school performing groups' competitions. So--if you have a child who plays very musically, even with an extensive repertoire, they are a "liability" as a member of a school group.

So the kids (who are actually playing violin fluently) come into a school program where they are expected to READ as a group, not PLAY with a group. And it's a problem. Most school orchestra teachers would say that it's the Suzuki model's fault, but maybe school programs should adopt more group-based auditory/imitative pedagogies, in addition to what they're currently doing.

Again--this is not my area of expertise, just observation and eavesdropping on string teachers' conversations.
But it does raise questions about the purpose of school music programs, or course.

Thanks for reading and posting, Liz.

Nancy