After a lengthy and thoughtful process, we are pleased to share that the main body of the Mainstream Playbook is now complete. Creating the Playbook was a collaborative effort of a cross section on committee members. As we prepare to introduce it, we want to emphasize that the Playbook was intentionally designed as a living resource—one that can continue to evolve and improve over time. With that in mind, the leadership team recommends adopting this initial version and assessing its effectiveness during the first year of use, while noting any revisions, additions, or improvements that may be helpful.
We invite the committee to review the document as a whole with that perspective in mind. At this stage, the primary goal is to identify any significant errors or substantive concerns. Administrative updates and related structural edits will be gathered separately by the Home Office and incorporated into the document before the final vote.
This approach allows us to begin using the Playbook now while also strengthening it through practical experience and committee feedback as the new program is implemented. We welcome the committee’s perspective on adopting the document in its current form as the guiding resource for implementation of the Mainstream program.
Later this summer, we will begin work on an addendum to the document which will include Extended Applications and related elements to support implementation. The committee will also have an opportunity to review and decide on.
Another important part of the rollout will be offering the lessons as individual downloads. This will give the committee an opportunity to review and refine the Playbook section by section as implementation progresses, rather than considering it only as a single document. In turn, this process will support focused updates throughout the first year.
As the committee reviews individual lessons, it may also be helpful to keep in mind that module creation—like calling itself—is a broad and varied field. Teaching styles differ, modules may be structured in different ways, and individual lessons may therefore be presented differently while still supporting the same overall goals.
In summary, we encourage the committee will support adoption of the Playbook as a complete document, with the understanding that details can be refined incrementally, based on committee feedback, as we move forward.
Following this discussion, the committee will vote on the initial adoption of the Playbook.
Thank you for your service on the Mainstream Committee and for your continued commitment to the mission and goals of CALLERLAB. We appreciate your time, care, and thoughtful review,
I see some issues with the grouping of calls like “Lead Right/Left” – “Veer Left/Right” they should not be taught in the same night, too confusing. Why is Grand Square not taught until week 6? – That is a fun call with a great deal of satisfaction – I teach that on the first night! Swing thru and runs should not be taught on the same night – same with Flutterwheel and Reverse Flutterwheel – let the ladies get their part down pat and then they can help the guys. These of course are my personal preferences and may not match opinions of others.
However, the biggest thing I see missing is the actual “DANCING”. Every single night is nothing but teaching and workshops. When do the people get to actually dance and enjoy the activity. Modern Square dancing is a SOCIAL dance activity – not an army drill. In the 20 weeks is there never a party night? Who ruins a party night by teaching every tip?? What about folks who miss a night or, heaven forbid, they miss two nights. In this format they may never catch up and feel uncomfortable in continuing. There should be some flexibility in this “Teaching Guide” and there isn’t any that I can see! With this system, if dancers miss a night, and it happens, they need to be able to join back in again. If they have missed a 5 call night and come back on a 4 call night, that is 9 calls to learn – Oh and they also have to review 4 or 5 calls from the night that happened before they missed. Our dancers are not 20 years old – most are in their mid 60’s to mid 80’s. This is a RECREATION not a school classroom for individuals working on a degree!! If this is the way callers run their classes, no wonder dancers are leaving! We need to bring them in and entertain them in their RECREATION not hammer them with new calls every tip! I have been calling for 61 years and every class is different – but the one thing that has been consistent with every class I have taught is the fun, social, enjoyable evening out! Remember, this is square DANCING!
I agree with Jeff … with no real dance nights and/or time to actually practice what has been learned … way too many calls and combinations to do in 30 hours and expect dancers to learn … what they learn is how to watch and follow.
I see a tremendous amount of work and skill devoted to producing this document. It is very impressive and those of you that gave of your time and effort deserve a huge thank you.
I’m sorry friends. But there is no way I can support this document. I’ve been teaching At least one new dancer class yearly for 57 years. Sometimes more. I have been teaching new callers for almost as long. There is a lot of trying to get the new dancer through material rather than keeping it simple and letting them dance. There has to be more to it than the choreography. I get the feeling that we are still trying to prepare them for what comes next. I don’t think the new dancer has that in their mind when they walk through the door.
New callers? If I was a new caller in a Mainstream area that need someone to teach their new dancer class, one look at this document would scare me away. We need new callers at least as much as new dancers. Maybe even more.
I was really excited about what I felt was the proposed purpose of the “New Mainstream.” I thought the idea was to shorten the teaching time and make the entry program both easier and quicker to teach and dance. I don’t believe there is any way that will happen with the material in this document. The material definitely reflects the mindset of today’s caller. I think that I am just too old-school to adapt.
Would someone please give me your definitions of Standard and Extended Apps.
I agree with Daryl the same as I agree with Jeff … with no real dance nights and/or time to actually practice what has been learned … way too many calls and combinations to do in 30 hours and expect dancers to learn … what they learn is how to watch and follow.
So again a very north American document. I miss all the applications used in Europe as standard.
I think also the circle of 4 should be directed. It’s easy to say “Heads circle left 3/4”. Or circle right 3/4.
I understand the reverse single circle, because until we get to the “right” in “single circle right” the dancers already have done at least half a left turn.
There are also some flow issues. (Like: lead left, split two).
But at the end we need to get it out and asap.
So maybe we should do the closer review afterwards.
In general I think it will be a “living document”
It will take a while to proofread all this, but at quick glance, here is what I noticed.
On the Calls list you have Circle 4 Left/Right, Single Circle Left/Right, they are listed the same way under the teaching order page & on the checklist page. Then when we get to page 1, we change the name to “Circle 4 Left/Reverse Circle 4”. I say DON’T do this. It changes the association of REVERSE to be associated with the RIGHT instead of the LEFT. Every other time we say REVERSE with a call name (like Flutterwheel or Wheel Around, it is associate with the LEFT hand dancer going in or LEFT hand dancer walking forward. Teaching all the Left hand calls & Reverse calls together, helps them to make the association between LEFT & REVERSE. It is easy to remember who does what when. Please stick to Circle 4 Left/Right & Single Circle Left/Right. That means editing every spot that is used in the “book”, but is a needed change. I agree with the comment earlier that consistency is needed. This is really going to confuse new dancers, if Reverse sometimes means Left & sometimes means Right.
Under #2 Dosado, you have not clarified who they go into the middle & Dosado with. If you want them to Dosaso their opposite, then you need to clarify that or they will go in to the middle & Dosado their partner, since that is what they were just doing.
Under 3a Couples Promenade in the second line, why are they stopping? Have them keep moving & have the boys slide towards the inside of the circle & up beside their partner ahead of them so they are now a couple promenading. They did pay to stand. This is also not the place to teach the formal hand hold for a promenade. Let them just hold hands between them right now. Teach the formal handhold when you teach Right & Left Grand. When they meet on that 5th hand, they have right hands already joined. When the girls rolls to face the same direction as the boys, with out letting go of hands, their right arm is in front of their body, they simply join the left hands under the right hands. Then you have the formal hand hold taught very easily.
Page 3, #3b, line 5 it says Promenade. It should say Promenade Home. If you don’t stop at home, how can the girls promenade & then back out at home.
That’s all the further I got right now. More as I continue reading the document later.
I don’t see anywhere in the guide that indicates Reverse means Left … all usages indicate the Reverse mean Right … consistent with the usage of the word Reverse.
Lesson 1 shows a list of terms and ideas under a heading “Pre-Teach”. What is the intended meaning of this? (There is no explanation of this in the preface discussion of lesson structure, and perhaps there doesn’t need to be since it only shows up in one lesson, but still it should be explained somehow.)
Is the idea that the instructor is supposed to stand up and give a lecture about all these things before the new people do their first Circle Left? This seems extremely unlikely, and I have never seen anybody start a beginner class that way. But that’s the impression this might well give a new caller trying to teach his/her first class by following this document. So if that’s NOT what it’s supposed to mean, there should be some text saying so. Or possibly there should not be a big list here at all, in that form, and instead these terms/ideas should be spread throughout the rest of the lesson, with each term listed as a separate “pre-teach” before the set of modules in which it becomes relevant.
And again, the lack of mention of Boys and Girls here seems odd. The terms “Opposite Lady” and “Right-Hand Lady” are listed, but not the more basic term “Lady” itself! The idea that the dancers are divided into two classes, Boys and Girls (but each with multiple synonyms), and that they start out in a specific position relative to each other, is one of the most important things that a brand new dancer needs to learn on the very first night — but these terms are not even mentioned in this list.
A few notes on the preface:
The word “Modules” is sometimes capitalized, other times not. Personally I feel that there is generally too much capitalization in these documents, ant that makes them more difficult to read. In this case, I suggest capitalizing the word “module” only when it is in the title of a section, and not when it is being used in an ordinary sentence.
In “Naming Conventions” (p. 5), along with Heads/Sides, Centers/Ends, etc. shouldn’t there also be some mention of “Boys/Girls”?
There are many inconsistencies between the “suggested” teaching order (p.7) and the listing by lesson (p. 8). Examples: Single File Promenade and Wrong Way Promenade are italicized in the “suggested teaching order”, which is supposed to mean “suggested … be delayed until later in the teaching sequence”, but in the listing by lesson they are included in the very first lesson, immediately following Couples Promenade. Similarly, the “3/4” variations of both Two Ladies Chain and Four Ladies Chain are italicized, but included in second lesson along with the more basic chain (1/2) across, and Dosado to a Wave is italicized but is included in lesson 8 immediately following Step to a Wave (in contrast to Single Circle to a Wave, which is also italicized but not taught until lesson 11, consistent with that italicization).
What does it mean to “suggest” in the “teaching order” document that certain things be delayed if we then publish an official “playbook” that does NOT follow those suggestions? I am not saying that the lesson plans are poorly constructed — I haven’t even gotten to those sections yet. And obviously people who are making up their own lesson plans can do things in whatever order they like. But if we are going to be “suggesting” things for new callers or for people who just like the idea of a standard order (e.g., for the sake of keeping different classes in the same area in sync), we should be consistent about it. If the experienced teachers who came up with these lesson plans really think teaching Single File Promenade on the first night is a better approach than delaying it, fine. But then let’s remove those italics in the earlier document. And similarly for all the others.
Also in the listing by lesson:
In lesson 8, All Eight Circulate is shown as 18c when it should be 19c.
In lesson 18, 49b is surrounded by square brackets, with no explanation of what this means.
I agree with the Teaching Manual (Guide). Either term identifies more accurately what it is all about. I would further suggest everything be in black and white, as color seems to get lost in importance – unless it’s red.
I understand making the blue text, but for color blind people it’s harder to read, unless it is a darker blue. Yellow and orange don’t work either. The hyperlinks are easy to change in whatever program you are using to publish the document under hyperlink settings.
Another suggestion for the name (I am thinking back to the 1970s Set’s in Order Book).
MAINSTREAM CALLER TEACHER MANUAL
I know it sounds a bit sentimental and old fashioned – but it does describe the intention of this document
Might be useful to have an “Alphabetic order” list added somewhere.
Yes, I would go along with the name “Teaching Guide”. That is, (in fact), what this document is about
Page 3 under 3-b do you want the girls to promenade after the boys move up to the girls and promenade?
Reverse wheel around is listed twice. First under week 2 and then under week 19. Thanks for all the hard work that went into this document.
On the teaching order by lesson sheet.
The font size on the Teaching Checklist should be larger. It is listed as size 7. This will make it difficult for many callers to read. I recommend enlarging to size 10. It should not affect the column spacing, although it just increases the page length.
Also, the table lines are blue in color, which makes it difficult to identify the box. Recommend using the color black for the table boxes.
There are a few web addresses with the blue color font. Recommend making them black and bold.
I agree with teaching guide name. I did notice that this is set up for the 19 weeks leason so that would be for the 1.5 hour classes what about the 15 weeks are we going to do something for that? I’m okay with just the 19 week one I would just adjust for my classes.
No-where does is state 1.5 hours or 2 hours of teaching per night, this should be stated what the teaching guide is for.
The teaching order states that the material should be taught in a minimum of 30 hours. This would typically equate to at least 15 classes for a two-hour format or 20 classes for a 90-minute format. Since there are 19 lessons in the series, the 20th class may be used as a review session or graduation dance. This point may benefit from additional clarification. Please also note that the number of classes and hours listed represents a minimum; the course may be extended based on student needs and the caller’s judgment.
At the bottom of the teaching order–page 7 it says: “It is recommended that the Mainstream Program should be taught in no less than 30 hours of instruction (15 two-hour classes or 20 ninety-minute classes).”
I don’t have any *substantive* comments… the overall structure and approach is fine, and the details look consistent with the intended content at first glance. Like everyone else, I would have preferred some slight rearrangements in the teaching order, but we’re done litigating that.
I was initially taken aback by “19 lessons” (!!!!), but later realized that was the plan for 90-minute classes, not 120-minute classes. Folks that use the two-hour approach would generally include a portion of the next planned lesson each week to reduce it down to 14 or 15 weeks of instruction. I’d like to see that point specifically mentioned in the “Lesson Structure” section.
I’d also like to see the checklist available as a separately downloadable item (since I’d print a new one for each class), but that’s a administrative point to be handled later.
One more question:
Is there a typo in the checklist? In the footer at the end of the checklist on page 12 it says
“CALLERLAB recommends that the BASIC & MAINSTREAM Programs, calls 1–50, be taught in not less than 58 hours”
… I think, this is a leftover from the “old” checklist 😉
Ralf
The teaching order states that the material should be taught in a minimum of 30 hours. This would typically equate to at least 15 classes for a two-hour format or 20 classes for a 90-minute format. Since there are 19 lessons in the series, the 20th class may be used as a review session or graduation dance. This point may benefit from additional clarification. Please also note that the number of classes and hours listed represents a minimum; the course may be extended based on student needs and the caller’s judgment.
Do we really want to call this the Mainstream Dance Program “Playbook”? It doesn’t matter that much to me personally, but I know that there are a number of people who consider that term inappropriate for reasons that matter to them. And it’s a sort of jargon, the meaning of which may not be obvious to people whose native language is not English. Why can’t we just use a neutral and more descriptive term in the title, like “Teaching Guide”?
Good point, Joe.
For me as a German, “Playbook” is not a common word in my vocabulary. According to my dictionary it is used in American football and board games to describe the moves performed there … so yes, this is something similar and would fit the purpose. But I also would prefer something like “Teaching Guide”.
Ralf
Agree with using the term “Teaching Guide”!
I am intending to put out a staw poll to determine if there is enough support for a change in name to merit addressing that in a separate HO Log.
I would agree with using the term
“Teaching Guide”