Dave Wirth
I remember a long time ago when a teacher I highly respected, and feared, called me out during class. "Dave, you are going to hate me now, but in 20 years you might thank me. Spell me a fully altered scale starting on A flat." This was in front of all of my friends. I didn't appreciate it.
This teacher was challenging me, and his point was not to embarass me, even though he did. His point was: "Be equal." He wanted me to truly know and understand music theory, and he challenged me to be thoughtful about it. 10 years later, I realize that that SOB was right. I laughed out loud, hard. Although I would not do something like that to anyone, there is something to the idea of being challenging. For many years, I felt it was the teacher's responcibility to make every challenge beatable. Now, I think that there might be room for being a bit more of an agitator. I'm thinking (and writing) out loud. Why can't a teacher do everything in their power to foster a healthy professional relationship first, and then start to challenge the student later? I'm sure this sound strange, but why not agitate a student to do better after both parties are secure in that professional relationship? If the student doesn't take responcibility for getting better, then who does? After all, the teacher's true goal is to teach their student so well that they don't need them as a teacher anymore, right? Many many thoughts are on my mind right now. I'm not going to be a jerk to anyone if I can help it, but I think this is the next thing to ponder as a teacher. More to follow.
