Multiplication by Division?

Let's do a countdown, shall we, starting with ...

6 - USSBA groupings, based on total band size.
5 - The State of Texas UIL (school size)
4 - Band of America (school size), TOB (winds), Cavalcade of Bands, ISSMA
3 - WGI (World, Open, A), a possible expansion from ...
2 - classes based on ability (DCI, USSBA*)

1 - "champion"?

How much is ... too much? How do you compare "like" bands, especially in contests where too many cuts make for too few competitors, leading to watered down championships? When does a band (and school - and face it, sometimes directors need "wins" to satiate principals and boosters and to justify ongoing investment in the marching program) start to break away from seeking quality, constructive and educational evaluations, and move in the direction of self-esteem contests?

I believe in the value and values of a marching program, to the kids, school and the community. The marching band is the one music education entity that touches the community, not just the parents.

Maybe in starting, or immature, programs some self-esteem is necessary. But this isn't life, and it isn't music education. Music education means the kids get scholastic adjudication. That being said, what does that mean?

One of the things I often wonder is what is the right balance of music (and the validity of percussion sub-captions), visual (with or without the color guard sub-caption), and effect (music and visual). Consider this:

... TOB weighting is 40% music, 20% visual (performance), 40% effect
... USSBA weighting 40% music, 30% visual, 30% effect
... BOA weighting is 20% music, 20% visual and 60% effect (although 2/3rds of that is music effect, upon which arguments that they are 60% music can ensue)

TOB and USSBA use other classifications based on ability, which I think is appropriate. But when you get to large bands, are you just watering it down? Some large bands can be thought of as "developing" marching programs, no doubt, but by breaking them into ability classes are you rewarding their achievement or encouraging their mediocrity?

Does "over"-weighting effect put too much emphasis on design (or, "the adults"), or is this a reward of how much the kids learn (or how well the teachers teach?).

I'm not an educator. I'm a band geek ... and band parent. I believe the scholastic programs should be education based, not design based, rewarding the teaching and the student.

Little wins do matter and they are necessary. (I use the term "little wins" from the business lexicon). But we need to encourage development and growth of the program and the kids.

So if it was up to me ... Two classifications ... two "5 Box" scales ...

Classification I - for the "leading bands":

* Music Performance - 30% ... 20% music, 10% percussion
* Music Effect - 20%
* Visual Performance - 30% ... 20% ensemble (which is an outgrowth of individual), 10% guard
* Visual Effect - 20%

It is "marching (and) band", after all. With this scale music and visual performance are balanced (50/50 on this scale), and performance is given greater credit than design (60/40 in this case).

Classification II - for the "developing" bands:

* Music Performance - 40%, with no sub-caption
* Music Effect - 20%
* Visual Performance - 20%, with no sub-caption
* Visual Effect - 20%

Here performance and music are given greater weight, and music outweighs visual, because from what I have seen developing programs are weaker in fundamentals and music, and this encourages development and growth in those areas.

Program growth - more kids, more bands - is the multiplication effect of this division!

This, of course, will be debated among circuits, among states, among regions ... but I am optimistic it will be settled soon. In fact, I'm told that the experts will get right on it!

After NCAA Division I Football Playoff's implemented. And Texas high school football goes back to A-AA-AAA-AAAA-AAAAA playoffs. And Indiana returns to one high school basketball state champion.