Anyway, the tableau was enacted on a big stage in the RC auditorium, before three or four hundred people.
Luke and his classmates in 717 drew the part of shepherds (since the costumes were more-or-less homemade, they ended up looking more like Bedouin tribesmen, which may be what the shepherds were anyway). Their job was to sing Noel. Two of the girls in his class, Renata and Kayla, stepped up and took the lead when it was 717s turn.
Staci, a therapist/child development specialist who works with Luke, reported that he sang along. We were seated too far back to see much except the strawberry blond top of his head.
Anybody want to go off-topic? Here's my entry for favorite Christmas movie: National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. It makes me feel like a philistine, placing it ahead of those sentimental, heartwarming classics, like Miracle on 34th Street or A Christmas Carol. But I am more deeply in touch with my inner Knucklehead than my inner Nutcracker. I defy you to watch NLCV and not laugh at loud.
The holiday season is all about the kids, right? So I want to get back to some of the discussion launched by my last post. One of the most frequent criticisms of the academy system that Nick Bollettieri popularized is based on a misconception - that kids get sent there by overly ambitious parents, and that the kids are welcomed with open arms (and eyes fixed on the parents' checkbook). Why, many of you wondered, would the parents of a six-year old like Greer Glodjo ship their child off to an academy, or re-focus their entire family's priorities on a long-shot tennis development plan for a child, when doing so may prevent that child from enjoying a "normal" life?
The answer is that the children in that position are not normal - not any more than chess or music prodigies. And while some parents try to paste their ambitions on a child and goad or force him or her to conform to their dreams, it doesn't really work that way. And the attempt to do that almost always dies on the vine, long before it can even become controversial. Imagine trying to ramrod an kid with no talent for music into an advanced prodigy program at Julliard. First, the school will quickly tell the parents that the kid has no talent. Second, even if the parents somehow beg or buy their way in, the kid won't last a New York minute.
In broad terms, this is also true of tennis. Nobody can explain why some children have an extraordinary facility and appetite for ball games any better than they can tell you why some kids are musical or math prodigies. It all starts with a specific gift - and its one that blind-sides parents as often as it falls upon them as some kind of answered prayer. My own son, for example, shows absolutely zero interest in ball games. I often took him to the tennis courts at Central Park (we basically live across the street from them), and he was aware of what the people were doing on those courts. He knows what I do for a living. I've taken him out with his youth racquet and a nerf ball, just for something to do (as well as out of curiosity), and I'll try to teach him the game at the right time. But right now, there are lots of things he'd rather do, and that may continue to be the case.
By contrast, here's how Greer got involved in the game. She received a tennis racquet as a birthday present (this is all according to her mother, Dr. Deidre Collette and father Arman Glodjo). She and her older sister went out to bang the ball against a garage wall, and within five minutes Greer was pounding away, and warning her sister to stay away from "her" game. Greer's parents then asked her if she wanted to take lessons. She said "yes!" Some time later, seeing how responsive the child was, the parents took a one-week vacation at the IMG Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy.
During their stay, they asked Nick if he wanted to have a look at their daughter, because they felt she was exceptionally talented and drawn to the game. Nick evaluated the child, and he immediately told the parents that she was unusually gifted - so much so, that he was willing to train her intensively, as long as she responded happily and made progress This essentially meant that the Glodjos would have to uproot and move closer to the action (the family officially resides in Bermuda), which they decided to do. Clearly, Greer responded to this opportunity; it was obvious and undeniable to me that she loved playing the game. The "team", in consultation with experts in the sports development field, then went about designing a specific, unique, child-friendly schedule for training.
Of course, all kinds of unexpected things can happen between here and Wimbledon - including a loss of interest or even a more serious case of burn-out. But it seems to me that this is a chance worth taking, simply because it's better to be pro-active and eager to provide a prodigy with every opportunity than to somehow hold back a willing - and willful - child, especially if the restraint is idealogical. That is, predicated on pre-conceived notions about what childhood ought to be like. All individuals are unique, it seems to me; it's probably better to follow and nurture the emerging longings and interests than to focus on the potential down side, or fret over where they may lead in worst-case scenarios.
This isn't a blanket endorsement of high-level early training. But we do know that the paths of development for great players have been as diverse - and in many cases, unlikely - as the personalities of those players. This we know for sure: There is no "one size fits all" solution to the challenge of development. Therefore, how can we rule out any approach, unless it's been shown to be disastrous?
