Band is a cooperative venture (yes, this would include chorus, too). You work together with the other people in the group; the trombones don't try to "beat" the clarinets--okay, sometimes they do, but they generally stop because for the group to succeed, everyone has to do their part. Everyone has to work together and put the achievement of the group first.
Sports are a competitive venture. You're there to beat the other side, not to work along with them. Your success requires their defeat. You get better by learning how to defeat strong opponents.
Bands are not zero sum. If four bands play in a single concert, they can all be excellent and successful. There is an infinite supply of audience applause.
Sports are zero sum. Somebody can only win if somebody else loses.
There are occasional attempts to bring elements of one into the other. There are, for instance, actual band competitions in which bands play "against" each other and some band wins. These are stupid. Why should a band that delivered a great performance be told that they're losers (those of you who are sports geeks are right now saying "because that's how the world works"). These competitions inflict a more subtle harm; there is a whole body of band composition that is designed not around a great musical idea, but around elements that a band would need to demonstrate to win a competition. These compositions are kind of lousy.
Meanwhile, it's the band geeks of the world that invented participation trophies and other ways to try to convince people who clearly lost the competition that they are somehow winners (you band geeks are saying "But why should someone who played their guts out be told they suck"). But if we tell folks involved in a competitive situation that they didn't lose when they clearly did, that's no help in dealing with reality, nor in improving.
Each has elements of the other. Sports teams have to cooperate within themselves in order to win. Not only that, but in the competitive world, the people who can best understand, appreciate, and respect what you're doing are your opponents. Band members, sometimes openly and sometimes subtly, jockey and compete for leadership positions within the group. We may be working together in this band, but we also know who the best players are.
There's some complexity and nuance here, but we're still talking about two fundamentally different ways of viewing how the world works. People steeped in the competitive model can be dumbfounded, frustrated, or even dismissive of people who don't seem to understand that it's a dog-eat-dog world. People steeped in the cooperative view can be dumfounded, frustrated, or even dismissive of people who insist that battling is the only path forward.
In education, the folks who insist that a competitive marketplace is the only way to get better are speaking a foreign language to those who believe in the cooperative model. Meanwhile, those competitive folks can't figure out why so many educators don't understand that it's impossible to get better if you aren't trying to beat someone. And both suspect that the other side is just pretending to believe in a model that, dammit, no rational human being who can actually see the world would honestly believe.
The model you see depends a lot on how the world was revealed to you when you were young. But I think the big trick is to grow past that model so that you can see the value of both. There are times when the competitive model is the way to go, and times when cooperation is the secret.
When considering competition, consider what the terms of engagement will be--what will the basis of the competition be? My town has an annual America's Got Talent style singing competition where the actual terms of the competition are getting audience support, and so the context actually measure which contestant is best able to get the most supporters to come sit in the audience. So it's not really a vocal competition (which is a mystery anyway, because how does one objectively measure the "best" singer); it's a popularity competition. In any competition, you have to ask if you're really competing over what you say you're competing over.
In education, leaders keep trying to set up competitions between schools and districts based on educational excellence, only instead they're really competitions to see who can get students to get the highest scores on a single math and reading test given once a year. The competition is not really about what it pretends to be about.
Cooperation has its own pitfalls. I play in a community band, and we long ago made the conscious decision that we were more interested in being an inclusive community activity than the most awesomest band in the state. So we have welcomed (and continue to do so) players who don't bring a lot of musical aptitude to the table. That's an appropriate choice; we're a community volunteer organization making music, not a professional team trying to get to the Super Bowl. But you can worry so much about avoiding competitiveness that you stop paying any attention to relative achievement at all.
But in education it's possible to lose the plot, to worry so much about not subjecting students to competition that you stop subjecting them to any meaningful evaluation. I get the impulse to eliminate gifted and talented program, especially when the competition for spots is based on dubious measures (my own district for years appeared to base the program on the student's parents' job). But that doesn't really help anyone.
Policy and politics folks seem to skew to the sports side. You can certainly see it in moments like the Moms For Liberty professional coms advice to never apologize, because it shows weakness. And you can't beat people that way. The mindset, so very common in the public-facing world of politics and policy, is at odds with teachers, who are largely cooperative model types, and often have trouble dealing with the various actors currently trying to beat teachers, beat public education.
It's not a perfect model, but it's another way to understand some of the gulfs that energize some of our debates. As always, the solution is moderation, balance, and bridges built by grownups who are willing to live with nuance and complexity.
