I’m a total novice when it comes to music, but I have an 8-year-old girl—she’s in 2nd grade—who really wants to pick up an instrument. Now suddenly I need to know everything, and I know absolutely nothing. 😁 Sorry for the long rant here, 🙂
I checked in with the local Juilliard-style conservatory, Zlatko Baloković, and there’s a tiny chance a spot might open up for flute this year. If it does, we might get an audition, and if we pass—God willing—that would be amazing... 😁 if not, they suggested starting with basic music theory classes...
To start off, does anyone have experience with this school, the teachers, or anything else? Any info helps. 🙂
On another note, my daughter is a bit hyperactive—she’s great in school, but she definitely struggles with focus and concentration... it's not dramatic, she doesn't have a diagnosis or anything, just my own subjective take as her mom... given that music school isn't just playing around, but a real school in every sense of the word, I'm torn. I want to give her the chance to develop those skills if she actually shows talent and drive, but at the same time, I worry it might be too much. I don't know if it's smarter to jump into the flute now if the opportunity arises, or maybe wait one more year... 🤔
Also, my niece goes to the local community arts center, and I noticed their prices are lower... I did a little Googling and it seems like Zlatko Baloković is on the pricier side compared to others. Don't all schools charge the same? How does that work?
If anyone is actually enrolled at Zlatko Baloković, I'm a bit confused about that introductory theory class. Their website says it's once a week for 45 minutes at price $400, but the lady I spoke to mentioned a slot from 6:45 PM to 8:15 PM—basically a full block session. Which one is it, and what's the actual cost? 🤔
Does it make sense to push through that intro theory now if she’d just end up taking standard theory next year in 1st grade?
Generally speaking, which instrument would you recommend as "easier" among guitar, violin, flute, or maybe clarinet?
And last thing—what kind of prices are we looking at for decent, student-grade models for these instruments? From what I can see, this is not a cheap hobby... which one ends up being the most expensive to play? 🕺
Thanks in advance!! 🙂
Think of that price more like a contribution rather than a flat fee; it’s basically what you're chipping in to help cover the upkeep and the purchase of instruments and all that other gear. Even though high schools are technically state-run, they don't actually get a dedicated slice of the budget from the city or the federal government to cover stuff like this. I really hope you guys aren't under the impression that those 150 or... $67 I was just sitting here thinking about how everyone seems to have a different idea of what "fair" actually looks like when you start looking at the numbers for tuition. If you’re trying to figure out the real monthly cost for anywhere between 18 and 90 hours of instruction, it really all comes down to the age of the student, doesn't it? It’s never a straight line. You’ve got your little ones who need way more hand-holding and specialized attention, then you’ve got the teenagers, and then the adults who are basically paying for the privilege of being treated like professionals. It’s like trying to price out a gym membership versus a private trainer; the baseline might look similar on paper, but once you factor in the intensity and the specific needs of the person in the seat, the math starts getting pretty messy. Depending on whether you're looking at a few sessions a week or a full-blown intensive schedule, those monthly totals can swing wildly. It’s a bit of a headache to pin down without a clear breakdown of how much time is being spent per age bracket. Look, you can't really skip the basics of ear training and music theory if you actually want to know what you're doing. It’s like the foundational stuff they teach you at a preschool—you’re there singing, listening, getting a feel for rhythm, and probably scribbling down notes and clefs on paper just to get the muscle memory down. It’s essentially the musical version of kindergarten, where you learn how to hold the crayon before you try to paint a masterpiece.
Kids dealing with ADHD need massive amounts of support at home and in High School, which basically means you can't just let them fly solo when it comes to practicing; you have to be right there hovering over them every single day at first. It’s not even really about the instrument itself—since they're usually getting one-on-one attention anyway—it’s more about the ear training and music theory drills. When you're staring down fifteen or twenty different sight-reading exercises, that's where things fall apart if they don't have someone keeping them on track. You really have to pay extra attention to providing extra help with reading sheet music if you notice your kid was already struggling with the basics like reading, writing, or math earlier on.
And just a little bit of friendly advice from someone who's seen this play out: if you start noticing that your child is hyperactive or just can't seem to lock in and concentrate, don't just write it off as your own subjective perception. It’s likely a real hurdle that's only going to escalate once the workload ramps up and they move into those more specialized subjects in middle school.
Why aren't you just sitting down with the teacher to actually hash things out and see what's really going on? Once you get the full story, you'll be in a much better position to make an informed call on whether or not you want your kid staying in that classroom. Right now, we’re all just stuck looking at your side of the story, which makes it pretty much impossible to figure out the actual reality of the situation.
It’s actually incredibly easy to mess this up if the teacher isn't being objective, or if they’re just green and don't really know what they're doing yet. Or maybe they just sit there during the school concerts instead of walking around and actually listening to how the other kids are playing. Sometimes they fall into that trap of thinking, "Oh, my students aren't really that bad," and then they go ahead and start handing out participation trophies or participation grades halfway through the first semester. Then, by the second half of the year, reality hits them like a ton of bricks—either the kid isn't putting in the work, or they're falling way behind the curriculum, or they simply lack the skill, or one hundred other things could go wrong—and suddenly they've dragged an unprepared student right into the middle of a big exam.
Look, if an exam goes totally sideways—I mean, if they’re sitting right on the edge of passing and their grades have been sliding downhill toward the end of the school year—there's a decent chance the teacher might just cut them some slack. We aren't talking about failing them outright, but more like, "Alright, let's just settle on a D." That said, I'm with you on the idea that grades throughout the year really ought to be more transparent and realistic. A teacher sees firsthand how much material a student is actually absorbing, so they should have a pretty good handle on what kind of grade that kid is actually going to pull during the final exam. If you find yourself staring at an exam grade that feels completely unfair, you can submit a written request for a retake within a 48-hour window. Just keep one thing in mind: once you go that route, it technically becomes a classroom exam, which means—though it's a bit of a long shot—they could theoretically grill you on anything covered during the year, not just the specific exam material.
And honestly, if there's some kind of deep-seated friction or just general bad blood between a student and a teacher, it's probably better to just ask for a different instructor if the school allows it. At the end of the day, not everyone is going to "click," especially when you're dealing with one-on-one lessons.
The final grade isn't just some automated calculation; it’s based on the teacher's assessment at the end of the school year—much like how they wrap things up in an American elementary school—along with a review from a grading committee. This committee usually consists of the teacher in question sitting down with two other colleagues to hash it out. The final mark doesn't have to be a simple mathematical average of everything logged in the digital gradebook, and honestly, more often than not, it isn't.
Look, if you want to make a move, go straight to the Department Head and ask for a change, but you’ve got to act fast—do it right before they finalize the schedules for the next school year. It’s actually a pretty straightforward process if you catch them at the right moment. If the Department Head happens to be the exact same teacher you’re trying to get away from, then skip the middleman and head up to the Principal. Just be honest about it; tell them the kid isn't vibing with the current teacher and that there just isn't any chemistry there.
wanderinggardener12 said:The Etymology behind it is actually quite straightforward: "curriculum" stems from the idea of a race, a lap around a track, or a specific course of movement. In American English, we don't typically retain those Latin suffixes when we adapt words from the original Latin roots. You see it all the time—take "atrium," which becomes "atrium" here, or how "studium" shifts to "study," or how "instrumentum" simply evolves into "instrument," meaning a tool or a means to an end. It’s a constant process of linguistic streamlining. It becomes particularly grotesque when you start grafting American linguistic suffixes onto Latin grammatical endings.
So many teachers seem content to feed children nothing more than mindless, repetitive busywork. I recall one particular instance that was quite glaringly obvious, yet there is a much more insidious type of indoctrination happening beneath the surface in classrooms across all grade levels. Honestly, don't even suggest that I should pull my kids out of school just to escape this. What is the actual point of having a first grader draw their family four separate times—once for social studies, once for English, once for religion, and again for a foreign language class? It’s utterly redundant. And what about those endless US Army drill-style exercises scattered throughout various subjects, where students are expected to complete sentences based solely on what the textbook author deems "correct"? If a child happens to parrot a specific word directly from the prompt instead of using their own vocabulary, they are suddenly rewarded for "completing" the task. Is this truly education, or just a lesson in blind compliance?
There’s a massive weight of responsibility here on the teachers, sure, but also on the authors and the editors. The problem is, everyone finds it way too easy to just lean on the textbook and those standard assessments, which, in my experience working with the younger grades, tend to be incredibly dulling to the mind. English class is a mess—sorry, that's a bit blunt, but it's true. It's just a mountain of mediocre, dim-witted texts, like that "Pauline Parker's Diary" nonsense—I'm not saying none of them are okay, but why insult children's intelligence like that? Where did the depth of writers like Tadijanović or Cesarić go? And then you have these mindless analysis questions. Even the grammar and spelling sections are riddled with inconsistent, practically useless examples. Math is just a bunch of cookie-cutter problems; there isn't enough variety, nothing "out of the box" that forces you to look at a problem from a different angle. Plus, there are constant typos, and sometimes you run into problems that are literally impossible to solve (the Profile series is particularly notorious for that). Social Studies is a whole other disaster. It's just a disjointed pile of facts thrown into a single lesson. The standardized tests and publisher worksheets are especially pointless, requiring kids to either mindlessly transcribe definitions or play a guessing game identifying photos of rivers, random mountain peaks, or old ruins—which usually just looks like a few crumbling stone walls.
Nicholas King said:It’s that classic, feudalistic "someone must provide us with this and that" attitude—the typical enlightened persona where everything begins and ends with the current employees being indispensable.
Who exactly is supposed to "set the conditions" (and what kind of conditions are we even talking about here?) so that a teacher can actually do their job properly? 😕
We aren't out here discussing building intergalactic spacecraft; we are talking about the absolute basics of grading based on whether a student actually knows the material or doesn't.
Well, for starters, there needs to be a solid way to filter people during the entrance exams for teaching programs, you know? And before that, the whole profession needs to actually be respected enough to attract decent candidates, and before that... yeah, the list goes on forever. The issue isn't nearly as one-dimensional as you're making it out to be; good teachers don't just drop out of the sky like manna from heaven.
Edit: I actually agree with you regarding this whole "indispensable" thing. In the American education system, it is incredibly difficult to actually get fired, especially if the only reason is that you're simply a mediocre teacher (and that's not even counting things like showing up late or other more obvious stuff).
Nicholas King said:That line of reasoning reminds me of that old joke—you know the one—where a blonde walks down the street, sees a banana peel on the sidewalk, and thinks, "Oh my god, I'm gonna slip again!"
The only thing that actually causes honor roll inflation is teachers failing to do their jobs properly.
But someone has to set the stage for all that to happen, right? You really have to dig deep into the history of the system if you want to find where things actually started going off the rails.
If you aren't exactly thrilled about the new proposed criteria for high school admissions, now is actually your chance to speak up. You just need to fill out the form, attach it to an email, and send it over to the address listed by December 4th.Send it to this address:
Here’s why I think these new requirements are a total mess:
- By factoring in grades from every single subject from 5th through 8th grade, we’re basically inviting a massive wave of GPA inflation. It’s going to put an absurd amount of unnecessary pressure on both the kids and the teachers trying to keep up with the curve. - Think about the kid who is a literal math prodigy but happens to struggle with PE or Art. Under this system, they might get shut out of specialized programs like MIOC entirely just because their GPA took a hit in subjects that have nothing to do with their actual talent. - There’s zero consistency here; schools don't have unified standards, and there isn't even any kind of external, standardized testing to balance things out. - Elective courses become a trap; students will only bother taking them if they’re certain they can pull an A, otherwise, it’s just a calculated risk to tank their overall average. - The proposal creates this weird, blatant inequality between student-athletes and kids who attended music or dance academies. Right now, winners of sports competitions get extra points that apply to enrollment in ANY high school, whereas musicians only get those perks when applying to an arts academy—and let’s be honest, those kids are already passing their entrance exams with ease because they’re specialists in their field. They wouldn't be state champions if they weren't already elite.
Betty Kelly3 said:I’ve been taking private guitar lessons since the start of seventh grade. My teacher focuses more on performance than theory, so I could probably pass the practical parts without an issue since I practice about four hours a day at home... I did ask him about theory, and he explained some concepts, but I know it's going to be tough trying to master six years of material in just two. Theory itself is incredibly vast and complex. Also, once I finish the prep stage and get into high school, do I get to choose my instrument, or am I stuck with just the piano? Thanks again for all the advice! 👍
Look, if you move on to a music-focused high school after finishing the prep program, you're still pretty much tethered to the piano. You might get some symbolic instruction on a different instrument over those two years—maybe a thirty-minute session once a week—but usually, they only offer the "less popular" instruments that nobody else wants to touch. Don't hold your breath for guitar to be one of them.
If you decide to enroll in the theory track at a preparatory program, say something like a specialized music academy prep course, you’ll be looking at ear training sessions twice a week along with piano twice a week. The heavy lifting is really all in the ear training; the piano is more of a secondary tool to help you get there. Once you move on to the high school level theory track, don't expect to be Mozart—your piano skills will basically be stuck at a fourth-grade level, and your ear training will sit somewhere around sixth grade. When you transition into high school, you're essentially entering on equal footing with students who’ve already finished their standard middle school music programs. The only difference is that you'll be taking a much lighter version of the piano curriculum, what some might call a "Level B" track. It's just common sense, really; trying to cram six years of technical piano proficiency into a tiny window of time is a losing battle.
All those other instruments they offer in the prep program? They're actually much easier to pick up than the piano. As for guitar, you're out of luck. There's such an overwhelming wave of little kids signing up for it in first grade that there's practically zero room left for anyone older.
So, what instrument are you taking lessons on privately? If your ear training is solid, you might even be able to challenge them with private proficiency exams. Honestly, your best bet is to just swing by the administration office after 10:00 AM and have a straight conversation with the registrar or the principal.
Betty Kelly3 said:Could someone give me some insight into what attending music school is actually like? I’m curious about the curriculum and how everything flows... To be honest, my family is fully behind me enrolling, but I do wish they had asked if I even wanted to play anything when I was younger. Because of that, I'll probably be the oldest person in a class full of ten-year-olds, but at least I'm doing this because I actually want to, not because I'm being forced. A few specific questions: 1. Roughly how much are the monthly tuition fees? 2. How many times a week are classes held, and are there any other little details you think I should know before diving in? I’m looking at applying to the Juilliard School, so if anyone here has experience there, please drop some advice! I would truly appreciate it since enrollment starts in just nine days, and I really want to go in knowing what to expect. Thanks in advance 👍
Look, at 15, you can't just jump straight into the first year of a standard music conservatory program, but you can enroll in the two-year preparatory track, which basically serves as a bridge to the four-year high school level program. During that prep stage, you're dealing with things like ear training, choir, and your primary instrument. You could even specialize in ear training itself—that's the theory department—and you'll get piano as part of that. If you go the instrumental route, you've got options like percussion, double bass, harp, clarinet, trumpet, sax, horn, trombone, bassoon, or even solo vocals. Just a heads up, in those prep classes you can't pick flute, piano, violin, viola, cello, or guitar.
The enrollment timing works just like regular high schools here—it happens toward the end of June, though applications and freshman admissions usually kick off in early June (with auditions happening around June 9th).
If you’re looking to pick up a used upright piano, my advice is simple: stay away from the big-name brands like Steinway if you're just trying to save a buck—it's better to buy from a family that actually cared about their instrument rather than some house that just had a kid who never bothered to practice 😁. Just make sure you bring a professional along to poke around under the hood before you hand over any cash. Besides, you can always flip an upright pretty easily when you're done with it.
It’s one of those classic parental traps where a kid signs up for music lessons, and Mom makes this grand promise that a real piano will be sitting in the living room by some arbitrary deadline—let's call it a dead day—but then the kid cruises through first grade without ever touching an actual instrument, and the cycle just repeats year after year, an endless loop of broken promises. If you’re looking at cheap electronic keyboards, specifically those basic plastic things rather than a high-end hybrid like a Clavinova, they are absolutely useless for a beginner because you can't actually develop any real technique or learn how to properly "produce" a tone. I’m talking about serious, one-on-one instruction here, not those cash-grab group classes designed just to pad someone's bank account. Sure, a Clavinova might work as a decent backup if you need to practice during a rainy season or something, but that's about it.
They didn't really give you any groundbreaking insight there, they just pointed out that it’s basically the only school in the US where you can sit for those private certification exams 😁 . And honestly, that's their whole racket... they make a killing off it .
The whole music education track here is basically split into a few different paths:
-You’ve got those first six years of elementary music school—where you can pick up pretty much any instrument except for things like solo vocals or pipe organ—and once you wrap those up, you're ready to sit for the high school entrance exams. -Then there are the two-year preparatory programs designed for older students who want to jump straight toward a theory major or dive into instruments that don't necessarily require a full six-year grind, like certain wind instruments, the double bass, or solo singing. After those two years, you face the entrance exams again. -Finally, there's the standard four-year high school music program.
To actually get into high school, it all comes down to having either that sixth-grade certificate or the two-year prep certificate, provided you don't trip up during the entrance exams for music theory and your primary instrument. From what I've gathered, guitarists usually run into a wall if they try to enroll in that two-year prep track at eighteen, though singers or double bass players might have a smoother ride—I mean, vocal cords aren't even fully developed until you're sixteen, and those bass players literally have to grow into their instruments just to reach the damn strings.
I’ve been thinking about it, and honestly, I don't think you can just walk into a state-run institution like the Juilliard School at eighteen and expect them to let you enroll as a freshman in their first year.