Restrictions

[superuser2]

All I know is that after the mic was knocked to the ground, everything but the cable still worked fine. Initially we were afraid it was the speaker; it wasn't. Swapped the cable and it was fixed. I can assume it carried more current than it was meant to and fried. But even then the only thing I was at fault for was a very loud bang - same amount of electricity would be going through the mic cable regardless of the fader's position, would it not?

 

As to turning on all the lights at once, a simpler solution would be to tell the light board operator not to do that and/or post a sign rather than banning student use of the board.

 

Simple training as to what not to do is a lot cheaper than allowing only professionals to operate your equipment. Stuff with protection circuitry and/or a limiter would also be a good idea for a public/community performance space...

 

Kids are capable of damaging computers by downloading crapware. Do we install security software and teach them to avoid crapware, or do we tell them only certified adults are allowed to use computers?

[Andrew C]

All I know is that after the mic was knocked to the ground, everything but the cable still worked fine.

The only way you would damage a mic cable by dropping the mic would be to pull a poor solder connection. NO WAY did the cable break due to the "noise" of it being dropped. It just doesn't work like that.

As to turning on all the lights at once, a simpler solution would be to tell the light board operator not to do that and/or post a sign rather than banning student use of the board.

Yeah, right. Like students read notices telling them something they don't WANT to read. Sorry, but I've worked in a school a lot longer than you've been on the planet. My experience is that one student will be fine with what he's told, but if his friends are with him, or there's a girl to impress, all bets are off!

[Ynot]

Plus the chances of any physical damage occurring from download of unsuitable software is pretty slim. Whilst the risks of damaging drivers and/or speakers through misuse is actually high (it happened to one of our main Nexo speakers a couple of months back) and the chances of causing fire through inexperienced operation of lighting kit is perhaps even higher!

[superuser2]

You're absolutely right that when you're being careless the potential for damage is there. I don't contest that at all. But when you're being careful, is it all that likely?

 

In a school setting, that equipment is there as much for the students to learn to use it properly as anything else. Unless the school purchased it only with the intent of making learning actors/actresses look/sound good and doesn't care about the development of the aspiring tech people's skills, in which case bans on students using it really do make sense.

 

Perhaps some of us cannot understand just how expensive this stuff is. I do apologize on behalf of my age group. But for me, around technology all the time, I've learned to appreciate it's expense. Typing from a multiple thousand dollar laptop I'd be the one paying for if I were to break it. Next to me sits the digital SLR I no longer have the financial capacity to replace. You learn to be careful with these kind of things. I'm sure there are other people like this under 18, so I get really angry when people put up blanket restrictions based on age without accounting for the responsibility of individuals.

 

Yeah, right. Like students read notices telling them something they don't WANT to read. Sorry, but I've worked in a school a lot longer than you've been on the planet. My experience is that one student will be fine with what he's told, but if his friends are with him, or there's a girl to impress, all bets are off!

 

This is the mentality that seriously bugs me. Especially when people think that everyone under 18 is like this. I can tell you I wouldn't try and impress a girl by running the risk of breaking something - a quick evaluation of risk/reward makes that one obvious. Massive embarrassment is extremely likely to occur and really the type of girls us intellectuals are after would not be impressed by loud noise. The most impressive thing I can strive for is to do my job, flawlessly.

 

I cannot believe I'm that much of a rarity. Individual decisions on the level of trust to be awarded need to be made on a student-by-student basis. When they aren't the kids who really want to learn and are willing to be careful lose out.

 

This I believe pretty strongly. I suppose in a community dominated by adults I won't be met with much support :-).

[Ynot]

I'm afraid I read your posts on this topic with a wry smile on my face. Because you are exhibiting many of the naive attributes often associated with youth and inexperience. Which in itself is not, by the way, intended to be insulting or patronising - just truthful, as naivity in the young (compared to old f@rts like me) is pretty much a way of life for a few years.

 

So, lets take your points in turn:

 

Carelessness - yes there are MANY occasions where students can and will do things with little care for the consequences. I'm not saying ALL students will be careless in ALL situations, but one of the joys (?) of youth is that culpability and responsibility are often strange words that seldom apply to them just yet. Sorry if that sounds insulting to you, but having BEEN a teenager, worked with teens over the past 25+ years and having daughters of 15 and 12, believe me I KNOW how the mindset can work.

But on the reverse of that coin, there is (and should be) a safety net in some areas which will act as a catch-all should things go wrong for a student, removing that culpability and responsibility... ASSUMING that recklessness and/or stupidity (two more hormonal/testosterone based teen attributes) haven't played a part too.

 

You're 100% right that students need to learn - that's what their purpose in life is after all, be it curricular or post-curricular. But for many, there is always the temptation to jump ahead, thinking that they know more than they do, wanting the results without learning the path there first. And sometimes this can be achieved, leading to a false sense of confidence for future impatience. As has been demonstrated MANY times here on the BR, there are a lot of youngsters who want to 'do' before they've perhaps learned the 'how' and 'how-not' first.

 

Expensive gear? Sorry, but look back at the culpability/responsibility arguments. I've known a LOT of youngsters (and a few aduts) who KNOW how expensive items are, but if they don't belong to them then it's not their problem if something breaks...

Access to expensive kit should be allowed on the basis of 'Show us you can treat it right'.

You use the example of computers and cameras... Would you allow one of your fellow students unrestricted access if he'd previously exhibited the habit of downloading pirate software, from dubious sources, careless of potential virus infections? Or, even, searching for porn, etc?

If said student took the school's digital SLR out without permission into situations where likelihood of damage was high - eg a swim-meet or crowded football game, then left it unattended because he/she got distracted by a member of the opposite sex?

I seriously doubt it - because responsibility has to be earned.

 

Notices. Well, all I can say is that whilst it's important to post notices about what is and isn't allowed etc, the first hurdle is getting people (of all ages) to actually READ them! We have big posters on our backstage doors will "WARNING - this door is alarmed" in big letters. And yet we STILL have regular alarm activations where people don't read or ignore this because THEY want to have a smoke outside.

 

Now, one thing you yourself have already demonstrated by your posts is that you appear to be a sensible sort of chap. The fact that you can string more than a few words together without resorting to txt-spk will set you up a few notches with many of us 'olds' in here.

But, with respect, you do need to look at the chip on your shoulder which is clouding your otherwise rational judgments. That may seem a little harsh, but chips of all kinds come with the teen territory! God knows I had a few in my time, and no, not all of them in my teenage years (though most were!).

 

Accept that as a rule, adults with years of experience in life in general do most likely know what they're speaking of. There will be exceptions, true, because life just isn't perfect. But lessons learned are often remembered.

[Andrew C]

Especially when people think that everyone under 18 is like this.

No, I do know that not all kids are like that, and that it is a sweeping generalisation. However, in my experience, both as a teenager, and from working for 18 years in one of the "best" schools in the world (with the brightest kids from around the world), that it isn't too far from being accurate.

[superuser2]

You're 100% right that students need to learn - that's what their purpose in life is after all, be it curricular or post-curricular. But for many, there is always the temptation to jump ahead, thinking that they know more than they do, wanting the results without learning the path there first. And sometimes this can be achieved, leading to a false sense of confidence for future impatience.

 

Perhaps sometimes that possibility really does outweigh a student's learning or a student's ability to help a school production. I guess most of you here think it does. I still believe it doesn't but you guys are probably right.

 

There is a temptation to jump ahead anywhere. We teach chemistry in our high schools; an overexcited student can easily have something literally blow up in his face. That information can also be used to create explosives. We teach computer programming in our high schools, and yet teenagers have created some of the most viscous worms and viruses (causing damages far greater than the cost of repairing a school audio setup). Whether they would have learned that anyway is debatable; but still we do not ask parents or the government to keep kids away from programming; forums and resources on the subject do not restrict access based on age. Nobody seems to think lack of restrictions is wrong.

 

It's a fact of life. It is my personal belief, though, that we shouldn't sacrifice all the positive things that can come from potentially dangerous knowledge. Especially in a school setting, where the purpose is still to teach students, whether or not doing so might be dangerous to the school.

 

I have been enlightened as to how things get broken and that they will. I still think in an educational setting that shouldn't prohibit students from running lights or sound.

 

Notices. Well, all I can say is that whilst it's important to post notices about what is and isn't allowed etc, the first hurdle is getting people (of all ages) to actually READ them! We have big posters on our backstage doors will "WARNING - this door is alarmed" in big letters. And yet we STILL have regular alarm activations where people don't read or ignore this because THEY want to have a smoke outside.

 

The kids who did that should be disciplined and removed from the crew. People like that should not be trusted with a performance, let alone equipment.

 

My grade has pulled one false fire alarm by a student with a history of recklessness and acting out; not the kind of person who'd ever sign up for stage crew and not the kind of person who'd be let onto it by a teacher who knew him (or had access his discipline records).

 

Now, one thing you yourself have already demonstrated by your posts is that you appear to be a sensible sort of chap. The fact that you can string more than a few words together without resorting to txt-spk will set you up a few notches with many of us 'olds' in here.

But, with respect, you do need to look at the chip on your shoulder which is clouding your otherwise rational judgments. That may seem a little harsh, but chips of all kinds come with the teen territory! God knows I had a few in my time, and no, not all of them in my teenage years (though most were!).

 

Accept that as a rule, adults with years of experience in life in general do most likely know what they're speaking of. There will be exceptions, true, because life just isn't perfect. But lessons learned are often remembered.

 

I believe some teenagers can be trusted, from having worked with them, having a blast, and putting on a few successful shows. I cannot envision seeing my stand on this change regardless of experience to the contrary. If that makes me immature, then so be it.

 

There are only two boards to be run. The students who do so should certainly be chosen carefully. In a school of 600 I bet there are two that could do so well and responsibly.

[Ynot]

In some ways you are now starting to argue against yourself.

 

No-one is saying that there are NO students of tender years who CAN be trusted - just that in the main, teenagers can often show teenage traits such as recklessness, ignorance, idleness, and more - maybe not all at the same time, but any one of these can cause problems.

 

And, with respect, who are you, as one of their peers, to decide which should have the opportunities to get involved in any activities?

Working a stage in any aspect can be the same as getting involved in sports for unruly teens - with the proper tutelage and management the extra experience gained can certainly make a HUGE difference and change problem kids in a positive way. But if the wrong kids get involved for the wrong reasons, or even the right kids aren't supervised correctly then the recipe for disaster exists.

[superuser2]

My position is changing; so yes I am retracting on some previous points. I would think the ability to learn and change my stance based on new information would be a positive trait.

 

I mean simply to say that I don't advocate for kids who aren't responsible. I use your example of people who disregard expectations to try and say that I don't support people like that. They ruin opportunities for their peers as well as themselves.

 

The right kids not being supervised correctly... the burden of supervision is on the person who's job it is to do so. That's basically what the guy who runs our auditorium does... he teaches people to do what they need to do and is there to supervise and help out throughout the rehearsals and the show. Though that may be specific to our school, I don't know.

 

Let's remember that this is debate for the sake of debate and I don't want anything here getting personal. Things are already turning towards ugly and as I don't see either party's mind changing anytime soon I will probably back out shortly.

[Ynot]

My position is changing; so yes I am retracting on some previous points. I would think the ability to learn and change my stance based on new information would be a positive trait.

 

<snip>

 

Let's remember that this is debate for the sake of debate and I don't want anything here getting personal. Things are already turning towards ugly and as I don't see either party's mind changing anytime soon I will probably back out shortly.

Ah - now that's where you are wrong. :)

This is in fact a good and worthy debate - I don't see it getting personal, or even heated - and the very fact that you are modifying your opinions based upon what's being discussed shows that you appear to be quite some ways ahead of your peer group and are prepared to listen and re-evaluate. Stubornness is, unfortunately, another teenage trait that is often hard to get over. Sure, adults can (and are!) also stubborn at times, but the 'grown-up' way to get over that is to have a good discussion - which may become heated at times - but air all views. Heated doesn't have to be ugly. :D

 

Some of the best debates I've had have been in the bar over a beer (or in your case maybe a coke ) and have been quite animated. But as long as all parties walk away still mates, then you're a winner. You don't even have to walk away with either side having changed their minds...!

[superuser2]

After letting this sit for a few days, here is the simplified version of my position:

 

Schools exist to teach people; schools that aren't colleges exist to teach people under 18. A student should be allowed to learn to run a lighting or sound console, with supervision, in a school. Yes, he/she might break something, but that's a perfectly reasonable risk. As far as other stuff involving heights or dangerous amounts of electricity where he/she might break someone, that's not.

 

At my school, the auditorium technician holds the keys to the booth and is always present at rehearsals/performances and within shouting distance of someone with a headset, though not necessarily looking over people's shoulders. Individual attention is always applied when setting things up (though mostly because most of us aren't quite sure how to do that yet) and he usually handles turning systems on/off (though we are not explicitly banned from doing so; it's usually done for us). We do have students running follow-spots but this is done from an enclosed area; we don't do anything else at height or on ladders. In short, reasonable precautions are taken, but we are still allowed to learn.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that when you're being careful, the risk of damaging the lighting or sound system from the console isn't that great. I also believe that some teenagers are perfectly capable of being careful. Plenty aren't, I grant you, but I don't advocate for people who've demonstrated their disregard for school equipment. The people I've worked with are, though. Judging by the number of successful performances pulled off by student crews, I don't think we're all that rare.

 

Please don't judge us by our age. And please don't compromise our chance to learn to do something we love because there's a possibility we might damage something. Minimize that risk as much as you can, by all means, but please don't value the school's equipment over our chance to learn to use it. That is, after all, a big part of the reason it's there.

 

From my understanding as far as audio goes, this point would be nearly moot were a limiter/compressor installed or the speakers had protection circuitry. Which would be a really, really good idea in a school. Don't know about lighting, but shouldn't things be wired so that normal operation doesn't risk fire? Because in a residential setting, if things are wired in such a way that flipping light switches too fast would burn your house down, I'm pretty sure you're not up to code :-).

 

Taking the appropriate technical precautions would be a good idea in a place designed to be operated by the inexperienced, just as driver's ed cars are usually very safe vehicles with precautions like a second set of controls for the instructor :-). And you walk before you can crawl; you don't start on the highway (e.g. a rock concert) until you've learned the basics in a classroom, in a parking lot, or on residential streets (simpler shows with lower volumes and less risk of overloading and/or screwing up the show).

 

Adults know full well what they're talking about, often more so than kids. But I can also claim to know a little bit about the people I spend the day with from 7:50 to 2:56. Some of us, whether by choice or by chemistry, allow reason to take precedence over testosterone.

[steve h]

After letting this sit for a few days, here is the simplified version of my position:

 

Schools exist to teach people; schools that aren't colleges exist to teach people under 18. A student should be allowed to learn to run a lighting or sound console, with supervision, in a school. Yes, he/she might break something, but that's a perfectly reasonable risk. As far as other stuff involving heights or dangerous amounts of electricity where he/she might break someone, that's not.

 

Schools do exist to teach people. However, you cannot expect a school to teach everything. A school must decide is priorities and however annoying it is for some people, theatre/lighing/sound is not always at the top, or even the middle of the list. An amazing student lighting designer does not get the school any higher up the league tables (unless of course they do a course in that area).

 

I took the step of changing schools to be able to do music, and there are many other places where students can learn about lighting/sound etc that isnt in a school. There have been a few threads recently where people are trying to raise funds or grab the schools attention about theatre, and thats great. But from a bigger picture there is more to it than purchasing equipments and running costs. For example supervision will have to be given to the stuents using it (in most cases!) and that means paying a member of staff. So where does this money come from? Yes some places do have a dedicated drama technician, however in some places its just another member of staff from another department who enjoys lighting...so why should, say, ICT, pay the overtime? And if the money gets taken from the event itself, then that can be a good deal of it gone on wages. (For example for this years school show in 2 weeks I put in 60 hours overtime)

 

Ive just tried to highlight one example of some of the problems that run in schools when it comes to lighting/sound etc. However there are more, such as all the safety issues mentioned in the thread, and also the unknown of whether maybe one year you will have someone who knows what they are doing, but what happens when they leave and they're is no one else. Technical extra curricular is not a God given right, unfortunatly it can easily come down to the school you go to and the members of staff you have. Im not meaning to put a damper on anyones dreams, merely through some light on why some people pleas for more money/restrictions etc seem to go unnoticed...I know I have a nice lot of equipment to play with in the school where I work...but even I get jealous when I see other schools that have more...that is the nature of life

 

Steve

(ps...after reading back thorugh this little rant ive noticed this might not be the best place for it...if someone wishes to move it to a better place thats fine by me!)

[superuser2]

If the school has other interests than it doesn't have the budget for the equipment. That's a totally different concern. I'm talking about schools that have the equipment but won't let kids use it.

 

Is it really cheaper to hire multiple professionals to do everything for you than pay one teacher overtime to supervise a group of kids?

 

I'm talking about cases where the school has the equipment and already holds regular performances.

 

there are many other places where students can learn about lighting/sound etc that isnt in a school.

 

Really? A non-educational venue would hire a kid with zero experience? If that is indeed the case than perhaps I'm wrong. But why would they? They don't exist to teach, they exist to put on a show and make money. You don't walk into an airport and ask a pilot to teach you to fly, you don't walk into Microsoft and ask a programmer to teach you how to use a computer. Maybe if you know a little and you're getting a degree in computer science you intern there and learn by helping out, but you wouldn't be very useful to them if you knew nothing at all.

 

You could learn in college, but if you'd never done it and didn't know if you'd like it or not, would you honestly take full-blown Technical Theater?

 

Maybe community theater, but at least in my neighborhood community theaters use exclusively adult crews, and the same ones (for the most part) year after year.

 

Where, if not school, would you start for the very first time?

[david.elsbury]

I started by reading books, and searching the interweb, for information on how things worked, and how to go about things.

 

Yes, books. Francis Reid, Richard Pilbrow, etc etc.

[paulears]

Nice one, David!

 

I did a week in a theatre, liked what I saw and then read every single book I could find. FR and RP seemed, to me to talk sense. It was my first experience of the US/UK divide too, but much of the info was really straightforward common sense, although at the time I didn't get it.

 

Performing Arts has become a popular subject over the past ten years - BUT the number of people interested in the technical side of it has remained the same, but access to information has increased thanks to the internet. A huge amount of schools are taking advantage of the popularity by running the courses, but the percentage of students with the right attitude and temperament to do technical is still very small. The number of schools and colleges running the dedicated Production pathway is very small compared to the Performance one. As a result, there have always been people 'forced' into technical rather than with a real desire or even ability to do it. It is these people who force the schools and colleges into stopping certain useful activities. I am certain every student knows the idiots in their classes - and the restrictive rules are for them. You say students cannot do any harm to a lighting system? Ha ha! I remember very well two movers that had been rigged to close (by students). One of the 'also rans' sat for twenty minutes crashing them into each other for fun! I could see him doing it but could not get away from what I was doing to stop it. I walked in one day to see a pyramid of desks being used because the proper ladder was missing. Hw about the student who thought that Tarzan style swings across the scaff grid was a safe way to access just a single lantern rather than go down, move the zarges and go up again.

 

Much as school restrictions annoy me - the tales above are from a college with 16-20 year olds. In a school, there's no guarantee that the teacher knows anything at all about technical - they may have a Drama or English degree. Shakespeare is within their skill area, but lighting or sound? All they have is common sense, which probably tells them they should not do it!

 

 

Not all students are safe - not all teachers or lecturers are either. Safety suggests the lowest common denominator, doesn't it?