# Dance lessons - competitive or non-competitive?



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

We are moving to a big city (yay!) in September from a dinky little town. My 3.5 year old wants to take dance lessons which I am all for but I can't decide which school. Most of them don't seem as real, I mean not classical ballet and more focus on competing. Alot of them really focus on the competing and I just don't know if I want my daughter competing. Shouldn't someone dance for the love of dance, maybe to become a performer, but not so some person can judge how well they shake their behind? The one school is $15 more a month but it is a great school. They don't do competitions, when you are old enough you can audition for their dance companies. They have strict dress codes and rules which I like. So do you think I should spend more money on the school that doesn't do competition? Or should I let her compete?


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

I personally endorse the *non*-competing variety - it's what I did, and I danced for the love of it; we did a spring concert and the Nutcracker every year, but that was it...actually, in my senior year we did a couple charity performances, which was cool...but we didn't do competitions. We had a dress code, pretty strict attendance policies, and a "company" to audition for when you got older...and I LOVED it. Woudln't trade the experience for anything. AND, my school turned (and I'm sure still does) out several pros from every class.

I have been scoping around my area for schools like this too, and found one or two amidst the others...so I feel you.

I'd personally pay the extra $15 a month. BUT, it depends on what you're looking to get out of it - if you're looking for serious dance training, versus a more social experience.

JMHO!


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Non-competition. They generally have a better quality of instructors and are more concerned about long-term issues and avoiding injury. When we first moved here, Rain took one class at a studio that's hevay into competition, and she said the teacher paid no attention to technique at all... the girls were all leaping around with horrible form and the instructor was eating a sandwich.

OTOH, for a 3 year old I'd probably just look into parks and rec or something. It's just supposed to be fun at that age: dressing up, leaping around, maybe learning a few simple steps or positions... but nothing serious.

MHO,

Dar


----------



## mamaley (Mar 18, 2002)

My former dance instructor at a non-competitive school used to say that if you enter a dance school and see a bunch of trophies, turn around and leave. This was 10 or so years ago, I'm not sure what she said word for word, but i think she said that competitive schools cared mostly about being syncronized but not about technique, etc.


----------



## Joannarachel (Dec 10, 2005)

Non-competition. I took ballet for a few years. Girls in DANCE school were the ones in competetions and performances every 12 seconds, wearing bizarre costumes.

I have fond memories of my leotard and the big, open, peaceful studio with the barre.

If/when my daughter wants to take lessons, I'll enroll her in a ballet school, not a dance school.


----------



## mamaley (Mar 18, 2002)

To the poster above me, I went to a "dance" school, it taught ballet and it was noncompetitive. I don't think there's anything wrong with a school that teaches tap/jazz/modern/etc in addition to ballet. Maybe I misunderstood?

Interested in learning more because I have a child who loves to dance, and we'll probably be doing this in the near future.


----------



## Joannarachel (Dec 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaley*
To the poster above me, I went to a "dance" school, it taught ballet and it was noncompetitive. I don't think there's anything wrong with a school that teaches tap/jazz/modern/etc in addition to ballet. Maybe I misunderstood?

Interested in learning more because I have a child who loves to dance, and we'll probably be doing this in the near future.









It might be different from area to area? My ballet school was STRICTLY ballet. No other forms of dance. It was very peaceful and very classical in focus. There were no competetions, only small recitals at the end of the year. When you got older, you had the option of private training so you could addition for ballet companies.

Whereas, I had a few friends in the nearby "dance" school that taught ballet and other forms of dance. I remember attending one of their many recitals. It was crowded and messy, there was a lot of emphasis on trophies. No real focus on technique and skill and just loving ballet.

I think what it boils down to, it depends on the personality of your dd and what you want her to get out of her lessons


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joannarachel*
It might be different from area to area? My ballet school was STRICTLY ballet. No other forms of dance. It was very peaceful and very classical in focus. There were no competetions, only small recitals at the end of the year.

I think it probably is different...my school was a 'dance' school that taught ballet, tap, and jazz, and even had a gymnastics studio attached to it (the dance master's son opened the other studio)..BUT, it was still no competitions, and very much into technique and real dance training...no fluff...at least when I was there for 12 years, I'm not sure about now.

I'd say ask to observe some classes, and ask if they do competitions, etc. and get a feel for the place, and decide if it's a good fit for your child, and what you are looking for her to get out of it.

Good luck!


----------



## AmyAngel (Dec 3, 2004)

I never got to take dance as a child, but have researched it some for myself(once I get myself down to a reasonable weight i'm hoping to treat myself to adult beginner classes at a good ballet school!). I hope my future kids are interested in taking ballet, too. I personally would pay the extra for a good, SERIOUS school - not one that competes or focuses on competition. I'd be OK with them offering other types of dance, as long as they are very high-quality, as it seems many pre-pro ballet schools also offer modern and maybe one or two others.

I suspect though, for a child as young as yours, that a really GOOD school would probably not offer much more than "creative movement" type classes. Most of them seem to prefer starting the more structured, serious classes at an older age. You could ask what age most kids start pointe, if they have ballet - if it's younger than 11 or 12 I'd run the other direction. I've found www.balletalert.com (the dancers forums - they have ones for parents too) have knowledgeable moderators, I've lurked there off and on gathering info for quite a while.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

In my area it seems like most of the competitive type schools are more like privately run extracurricular drill teams/cheerleader type stuff than what I properly consider "dance"...(and my sister did modern dance for years so I do at least roughly know the difference)...more emphasis on synchronized routines than individual dance technique. Not to mention any philosophical issues one may have with turning children's fun activities into a competition.


----------



## momma2mingbu (Jun 1, 2002)

Non-competitive is better, IMO, especially when they are younger. They need to concentrate on learning the basics, discipline, finding out if they actually like it, and staying safe and healthy. NOT pushing themselves for competitions and fundraisers for costumes, etc.

We take dance at our local parks dept. so far. The instructor is great. The price is amazing compared to most dance studios. They learn the basic ballet movements. They have learned some French and plenty of dance terms. No costumes to buy and simple requirements about what they need to wear for class. So far it's been very worthwhile and is forming a good basis of knowledge so that later on we can decide if they want to take more dance at a studio.


----------



## MamaMonica (Sep 22, 2002)

Interesting comment about the trophies. Dd went to a dance school with a lot of trophies in the lobby and it turned out to be a negative experience and we left. She stopped having fun when they began drilling routines for the show.

We've been happier with parks and rec dance classes. No competition and the teacher is focussed more on the individual than a synchronized group. They had a recital and it was sweet- no costumes-- they wore what they had and it was fun.


----------



## mightymoo (Dec 6, 2003)

: I just posted this exact question in The Childhood years - we have a 3 year old who takes a fun movement style class at a dance school - in the fall she's going to preschool half days so I don't plan on having her go to this class anymore (it's more preschool like, 2 hrs/2 days a week) - but was thinking of sending her to a dance class - she'll be 3.5. This school is much further away from us than one that is just across the street, but the website for the nearby one talks a lot about 'debut's and competitions. They brag about how one of their students "debuted" on a play-dough box. Pretty scary to me!

The place my daughter goes now is non-competitive, so we'll probably keep sending her there just swap over to a dance class in the fall. I want her to enjoy dance for the sake of dance, not for debuts and competitions.


----------



## ILuvMyBaby (Feb 24, 2004)

I teach competive dance at a studio where there are children who do competition teams and then their are the recreational teams. The rec teams just do a recital at the end of the year. At the age of 3, I dont think you should put your child in any kind of competition dance. I honestly think it is kind of strange. We do take kids at the age of five on our competition team, but they are extremely talented and have a great attention span. Not saying your daughter doesn't, but she just seems so young to me.

At our studio all of the kids receive a wonderful dance education and we are very technical with our competition team. If we were not, then the kids would not be able to compete with the competition in our area. We have a professional ballet teacher from Russia who does only the basics with the kids, then they have tap, jazz, jumps/turns class, and stretch/conditioning class. I guess if you are dancing competitvely you are part of a team, and you must dance as a team. We do tend to focus on the team aspect instead of the individual dancer in jazz and tap classes. In the ballet and the other technique classes, we focus on the child individually. Either way, I would l not say it is a bad school just because they compete. They might offer groups that don't compete.


----------



## mightymoo (Dec 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ILuvMyBaby*
At the age of 3, I dont think you should put your child in any kind of competition dance.

I have no intention of doing that - the question in my mind was whether to start lessons with a school that does competitions or not. I wasn't thinking my 3yo would be competing, I'm just thinking long term that she's more likely to get involved with the school we pick now and later compete if they are competitive.


----------



## weliveintheforest (Sep 3, 2005)

I think it might be a good idea to meet the teachers and even observe a class before you decide, if at all possible. Dance classes are so expensive, but it is worth it to pay more for a class that you think your dd will enjoy more, whether or not the school does competitions.

As an adult I don't like the idea of my dd (or any small children really) competing at dance, but when I was younger I really liked it, so I guess if we leave it up to our children they will let us know.


----------



## oldcrunchymom (Jun 26, 2002)

weliveintheforest... LOVE your daughter's name!









OP, my daughter dances and we are having somewhat of a dilemma ourselves (a whole nother story) so I have been doing some research on dance schools lately. From what I can tell, there are a few different types of schools. One is the recreational type that just concentrates on learning recital dances for the end of the year. Two is the competition-based school that concentrates on picking the best kids out of their "rec" classes and moving them up to compete and win stuff. Three are the more serious studios that follow an actual curriculum based on various traditional "schools" of dance. Usually these more serious schools have dance companies and/or performances but don't do the competition circuit.

The confusing part is that these types of schools can legitimately intermix (for instance, just because a school is recreational doesn't mean they're not following a curriculum, competitive schools can also offer casual rec classes, etc). As a previous poster mentioned, some competitive schools have great teachers for all levels of dance. Some don't and pretty much treat their rec classes as second tier. And just because a dance studio is non-competitive doesn't mean it will automatically be a better choice. Some recreational places will be so casual that they won't teach proper form, which may not be vital at age 3 but will become more important down the line if your child decides they want to dance seriously.

Personally, if I were in your position, I would go for the preschool-aged movement classes at a more serious dance school. That way if your daughter decides she wants to continue in dance she will have a solid foundation and won't have to switch studios. And if she doesn't, no harm done.


----------

