It added to the girl’s high school experience. People with physical and mental challenges are often excluded (from all kinds of things). Some people today think that’s a shame, and are making efforts to promote the idea that high school should be a better experience for all, if possible. The “performance” that was impacted, is of little concern. 12 months (or 2 weeks) from now, no one will remember the performance. This girl, however, will probably cherish the memory. If this concept is truly confusing to you, I don’t know what to say.
In competition high school marching band (not DCI) they will put a piece of tape on the pant leg of a kid who has a disability that keeps them from fully performing the show at the same level as the rest of the kids. The judges know to basically ignore that kid and not penalize the whole band for their performance.
It’s a great system because all the kids get to fully participate in the awesome experience of competitive marching band and there is no detriment to the band’s overall achievement.
Adding to the performance has nothing to do with it, though. This is homecoming—a celebration of the school and its students. And these are cheerleaders, and while they do often perform, their primary purpose is to lead cheer—to get the audience excited and lead them into celebration.
This isn’t a skill competition. Nor is it exclusively a demonstration of the skills of the cheerleaders. Hence her being a part of it doesn’t really detract from much. But it does allow her to be happy, and for disabled kids like her to be included in the celebration. And, in my experience, said happiness is very often infectious, making her ironically good at leading cheer, even if she lacks other skills. She gets the benefits that extra curriculars would have.
With a band or choir, there is the potential issue that a student who can’t perform might audibly cover up those who can. Those situations are a bit more tricky. But, in most cases, they can find something for the disabled student to do that won’t detract.
It’s rare that a school that actually excludes its disabled students from these sorts of things. The whole goal is to include as many as possible even without considering disabled kids. That’s why you have multiple strings in football, multiple cheer squads, multiple bands and choirs. Schools tend to want to give everyone a chance to participate in the extracurriculars, because the goal is enriching the students.
It’s not always possible or practical. But they do it when they can. And they especially tend to try and find a way for disabled students to participate.
I think people are maybe being a bit harsh here. Yes, there are still competitive cheer squads at most schools but they exist within larger cheer/spirit programs that focus on inclusivity, teamwork, social skills, physical fitness and personal growth. There will absolutely be a place for all students in one of these sub groups.
Likewise with orchestra. My childrens’ school has six orchestras. One is competitive, in that there are difficult tryouts. 2 require tryouts that focus less on skill and more on attitude and dedication. The remaining 3 are for anyone who wants to play, and they do include students with special needs. They all perform, though, because there’s no sense in having an inclusive group activity where performance is a key element of that activity and then never allowing one of those groups to perform. (They also all compete, but at various levels).
So yeah, things have changed.
I’ve heard about something that, thankfully, seems to have been before my time: the “listener group” or the “mouthers” in grade-school music classes. Kids who were deemed by the teacher to be tone-deaf were relegated to mouthing the words or just sitting there while the other kids sang. Not only was that cruel, it was impractical. What were those kids getting out of being non-participants, and how tuned in were they going to be for the rest of the class? I mean, what BigT said: poor singers might drown out the acceptable singers*, but a) the supposed “good” singers were probably still not Vienna Boys’ Choir caliber and b) are you a teacher or not? Work with the “listeners” a little, huh?
*My grade school had the reverse of this. There was one guy who was really good, and we followed him, but I remember a couple of times when he had the wrong key or tempo, and the rest of us basically derailed, unable to follow him and unable to find our own way.
I think that, if the ultimate purpose of extracurricular activities isn’t to be fun for the students involved, why does the extracurricular exist at all? If any extracurricular is engaging in competitions, it should only be because the students find competition to be fun.
And speaking as someone who was in the band myself, let’s be honest: If the purpose of performance arts in schools is to entertain the other students, then most school performances throughout history have been utter failures. We might, on a good day, have fostered school spirit, but that’s not the same thing as entertaining. And allowing students with disabilities to take part adds to school spirit, rather than detracting from it.
I don’t understand what problems the OP is trying to solve.
The woke-boogie man isn’t out to destroy Western civilization starting with cheerleading squads.
Well, I guess if you interpret “to be fun” broadly enough, possibly to include things like building character, building friendships, building skills and mindsets that may carry over to students’ adult lives, and contributing to school culture.
The thing about competition is, in order for it to be fun (for the competitors and for the spectators) and to offer some of the other benefits it offers (like building character), it has to be taken seriously—but not too seriously. You have to pretend it matters who wins, while realizing in the back of your mind that it ultimately doesn’t. You have to strive for excellence, while realizing that there are some things that matter more.
Exactly. Nobody is good at anything in high school. You might be good relative to your peers but stacked up against adult people with actual skill, only in rare cases would a teenager be actually good at anything. The whole point of extra curriculars is to learn how to do something so that one day you might be good at it, or in the very least you might have practice learning how to do things so you can more easily learn something else later. The performance is not the point. The learning process that leads to the performance is the point.
That’s why it’s called school.
@Dinsdale, I had an epiphany some years back about theater. In professional theater, the actors are there for the happiness of the audience. In community theater, the audience is there for the happiness of the actors.
All children’s activities, from gymnastics to violin recitals to cheer performances to soccer games (there shouldn’t be kids’ football games, but that’s another issue), should be there for the kids engaged in the activity. The audience is ultimately there for them. The performers aren’t professionals, nor should they be.
I think that our kids have been pushed into far too much hyper-competition, and it’s terrible for them. Activities that should be fun have become almost professionalized. My own daughter had to drop out of gymnastics because there was no studio in town that would have a seven-year-old just do classes once a week: it was either four times a week plus regular meets in other towns, or drop out. We have families that restructure around a child’s competition, and we have wealthy families paying for private lessons and tutoring and equipment that put their kids beyond the reach of families with fewer resources. We have kids who are building their future around scholarships based on games.
This is a fucked up system top to bottom.
So when I hear that some school, somewhere, is inviting all kids to join the revelry, even if they have a cognitive condition that makes them not very good at it, it brings me joy.
The cheer squad is there for the children. She’s one of the children. It’s there for her.
More’s the pity. I always thought it would be cool for my son to be into robotics someday (he’s interested in how things work) but apparently it’s a nightmare time commitment to be in any robotics program these days.
I’ve probably said it before, but I’ll say it now- You’re welcome at my place for a drink and a nosh anytime.
Aw, thanks–you too!
We were getting the chance to side step an activity that we found unpleasant and confusing in a way that kept the rest of the kids from being angry at us for ruining it. When the music teacher told us we could just pretend to play the recorder if we were having trouble, that was great! To this day, I’m still a non-participant in things like singing happy birthday, or whatever.
Just like all students should be able to participate, the option should also exist to opt out. Obviously I don’t mean getting out of algebra or other core subjects, but I’m far happier learning music or art history and theory than performance or creating.
By mouthing along I wasn’t being punished for being bad at it, I was being exempted from stress.
I sure can’t fault anyone for having this kid participate. I bet the other students on the team were happy to have her and the students watching were happy to cheer for her. Maybe the kid can’t go to a competition, but she can sure cheer during a game.
Well, if you prefer to opt out, sure; it would be equally cruel to go all J.K. Simmons on a kid who doesn’t want to get better. But, I’ve mostly heard it in the context of a kid who was ordered to be a “mouther”, got reprimanded if they forgot and tried to sing, and was frustrated because they would have loved to express themselves that way, if someone would show them how. It seemed to be a byproduct of overcrowded schools: teachers had all they could handle just rolling the ball down the middle and hoping they touched most of the students [tm Charles Schulz]. I’m happy for you that that was a good option, but I think this is the first I’ve heard of it being an option, rather than “Step aside, you’re not good enough.”
Yes, and not only does it benefit all the participants, it also benefits the audience (other than Dinsdale).
Never mind. Too annoyed.
You seem to be blind to how odious some of your posts can sound. And then you fault the responders for being appalled.
Yes, if only the parent community could be so wholeheartedly accepting, rather than being annoyed that the performance wasn’t up to par.