AD - Recognition - Levels (Short)
Hemophelia at aol.com
Thu Apr 22 22:05:10 PDT 1999
"No single person could ever block advancement in the system I'm suggesting
(unless s/he was the only evaluator present). The system should be
affirming and instructive, always seeking to help a guild member improve.
If we are to have "levels" I'd like them to be something more than "I teach,
therefore, I am."
I think what we should be concerned about is not a single person, but rather
a group . . .I think this system is too political in nature allowing for one
"political" party to join forces against another. . .say Dance Liberals (D)
who enjoy doing English Country Dance vs. the Austere Conservative Dancers
(R) who are relative purists who refuse to do Korobushka. . . This system
with all the voting and whatnot destroys the unity for which we are striving
I for one didn't join the SCA to get involved in politics and motives. . .I
did it to make merry and dance . . .I dance therefore I am. . .
"If levels are not that important, lets not have them. People will simply
claim what dances they can teach and the Guild can maintain a data base. We
can then inform inquirers what dances a member claims to be able to teach.
However, if the Guild is to stand behind the qualifications of an
instructor, then the Guild needs some method of assuring the truth of a
representation that a member is a qualified instructor. Teachers, in my
experience, test pupils before they advance them and those who graduate
unqualified pupils do a disservice to everyone."
My concept of the purpose of having levels is so that we can tell who is
qualified to teach dance etc. . .if this is so, it would be unnecessary for
someone to be tested on their dance knowledge. . .if they cheated in some way
and didn't know the dances they claimed, wouldn't someone figure it out when
that person was called upon by someone to teach dance? wouldn't that only
happen to that person once? and who would cheat anyway? (I think we're
mostly adults here. . .anyone who might cheat is probably already recognized
as a lying shifty knave) And we've already discussed precautions like having
the local A&S minister sign the letter etc. . .Also it would make it simpler
if we decided not to have levels and were going to keep a database of dancers
that we had a quick and easy method of being able to reference them: ta da:
levels: simply measured by how many dances they know etc. okay now I'm
seeing a cycle emerge: if we don't have levels we should simply have a
database. . .but if we're going to have a database we need a way to organize
it: so we should have levels. . .
We should have levels: and I agree with Guillame: they aren't important
beyond being able to keep track of who has learned more. . .
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.
More information about the Ansteorra-dancers