AIBU to think primary schools should not audition children for choirs?

I do sympathise, but you’re over-reacting. Your daughter has not really been socially excluded. Her best friends possibly are not around, but that doesn’t mean that she’s excluded from anything. In my experience, the members of staff on duty would engage with any pupils seemingly on their own and help them to resolve any issues.

Stop wrapping your child in cotton wool. the whole world can't revolve around your child. If she really wants to go into theatre she is going to face rejection on a weekly basis. You are not doing her any favours here OP.

But tell me... I am the parent of a child with a physical disability and other health needs... plus a child with a visible difference that isn't pleasant - the staring, the questions, etc ... What on earth am I supposed to do to help my child who has a physical disability / visible difference feels good about themselves? Of course I show them that everyone is unique, they are NOT defined by their disability... Yes, there are things they can't do and I gently have to tell them that it's because of their needs, but there are sometimes things life throws your way.

You asked - aibu to be annoyed that a school auditioned children for a singing competition. Yes, I think you are being unreasonable to be this annoyed about it. Maybe first come first serve would've been an option. Maybe randomised selection would have been an option. But it wasn't. They did an audition. DD is only year 4. She can accept that she didn't get to do it this time. She can audition again next time. It sucks. My DC loves sports. His physical disability means he can't do them. I don't blame the system. That's life.

What the school need to do now is help your daughter find some new friends, have support to cope with her emotions and thrive in the circumstances.

I don't understand why you posted in aibu if you don't want to genuinely know whether yabu!

My priority, despite all else, has been wanting my kids to have a healthy self esteem despite all their challenges, the operations... My daughter has had 8 operations related to her condition... EIGHT. Eight times of saying goodbye to your child while they are put to sleep in one of the most specialised children's hospitals in the world.

Don't talk to me about how my view is ableist. My viewpoint just wants your dd to have a healthy self esteem... For her to know that regardless of disability/ability etc, she is loved, secure, able to thrive in many other ways and that her disappointment and lack of making it this time doesn't define her.

Exactly this

The National Eisteddfod is independent of the national Urdd eisteddfod.

What is Eisteddford - is it for choirs or soloists? I have to admit I've never heard of it?

I would also like to provide some context and explain that pupils have to be a member of the Urdd in order to be able to compete in the local, county and then the National Eisteddfod, if they qualify. This means paying their membership via the Urdd portal. As teachers, we could only select the paid up members to compete. This was quite frustrating at times as some really talented pupils (or sometimes the parents) weren’t interested. So there would be a smaller pool of possible choir members in the first place.

The event in case here seems very different and it seems perfectly reasonable to me that Year 6 pupils have been selected first and then auditions for the remainder of the places. We have no idea of the numbers.

Are you talking about an external show because if you are that’s very different.

My DD cannot escape this. it’s at school - she has already spent one lunch break sitting on her own in the yard as a direct consequence of this. Who knows how many more times she’ll have to do that?

If this was an external show then I’d understand but this decision by teachers had directly resulted in my dd being socially excluded and being in tears 3 times in 2 days.

This is the same DD who couldn’t wait to back to school after having major surgery.

Where are you seeing ableism?

justasmallbiz
"READ THE THREAD.
20 children. 12 were chosen. 8 are not."

But as the OP says of those 8 " 5 of which didn’t audition and didn’t want to be part of it".

So, I have been in touch with the school. I emailed to ask if DD could just practice with the choir. They haven’t replied.

DD has just got home and said the the choir practiced 4 times today-during both breaks, lunch and then taken out of afternoon lessons.

It doesn't appear possible to vote in the poll any more, but I'm a primary school music specialist and I was going to vote YANBU.

I've worked in lots of different settings, state and private, with auditioned and unauditioned choirs, and over time I've come round pretty firmly to the belief that they should be unauditioned. The most important part of getting children to do music, to whatever level they want to take it, is engaging them non-judgmentally with happiness, open-mindedness and interest, forming positive associations and avoiding negative ones. People talk about resliance and poor little snowflakes, but these are very young children we're talking about. Experiences like this DO damage peoples' ability to positively engage with activities. I've personally met adults who have been permanently putt off by them, we probably all have.

I also think there are very few children who can't sing in tune when they're taught correctly and the material is chosen and arranged suitably, and a school with a decent music program should be able to assume any child who's been following it for a few years will have a usable sense of pitch in the same way they assume anyone who's completed all the early years phonics etc will be able to read to a certain level.

There are also more and less sensitive ways of selecting children for such things. Taking a class of 20 or 30 children and saying you're going to audition for three of them to play lead roles in a production is fine, because you're not singling out the remainder as losers. Anyone who doesn't get the role is not worse than everyone else, they just weren't the very top (which is partly dependent on suitability for the role, rather than anything general or absolute anyway, and much of this can be explained to them).

Auditioning a group of 20 for something and passing all except 3 of them is completely different. It no longer says "you're just like everyone else", but "everyone else is in normal/average range, except for you and the 2 other losers who are exceptionally below it". I'm shocked that nobody in the planning process would have considered this, to be honest.

For such a number of children, they should have just chosen two whole year groups. For a smaller number they might have been able to devise an audition process without such negative consequences.

I’d be more inclined to agree with you if the school were picking the top 3 children in the year.

Leaving 3 children out in the year feels like exclusion.

I’d be more inclined to agree with you if the school were picking the top 3 children in the year.

Leaving 3 children out in the year feels like exclusion.

So she'll get the chance once she's year 6 then?

If so that's fair.

It doesn't appear possible to vote in the poll any more, but I'm a primary school music specialist and I was going to vote YANBU.

I've worked in lots of different settings, state and private, with auditioned and unauditioned choirs, and over time I've come round pretty firmly to the belief that they should be unauditioned. The most important part of getting children to do music, to whatever level they want to take it, is engaging them non-judgmentally with happiness, open-mindedness and interest, forming positive associations and avoiding negative ones. People talk about resliance and poor little snowflakes, but these are very young children we're talking about. Experiences like this DO damage peoples' ability to positively engage with activities. I've personally met adults who have been permanently putt off by them, we probably all have.

I also think there are very few children who can't sing in tune when they're taught correctly and the material is chosen and arranged suitably, and a school with a decent music program should be able to assume any child who's been following it for a few years will have a usable sense of pitch in the same way they assume anyone who's completed all the early years phonics etc will be able to read to a certain level.

There are also more and less sensitive ways of selecting children for such things. Taking a class of 20 or 30 children and saying you're going to audition for three of them to play lead roles in a production is fine, because you're not singling out the remainder as losers. Anyone who doesn't get the role is not worse than everyone else, they just weren't the very top (which is partly dependent on suitability for the role, rather than anything general or absolute anyway, and much of this can be explained to them).

Auditioning a group of 20 for something and passing all except 3 of them is completely different. It no longer says "you're just like everyone else", but "everyone else is in normal/average range, except for you and the 2 other losers who are exceptionally below it". I'm shocked that nobody in the planning process would have considered this, to be honest.

For such a number of children, they should have just chosen two whole year groups. For a smaller number they might have been able to devise an audition process without such negative consequences.

It doesn't appear possible to vote in the poll any more, but I'm a primary school music specialist and I was going to vote YANBU.

I've worked in lots of different settings, state and private, with auditioned and unauditioned choirs, and over time I've come round pretty firmly to the belief that they should be unauditioned. The most important part of getting children to do music, to whatever level they want to take it, is engaging them non-judgmentally with happiness, open-mindedness and interest, forming positive associations and avoiding negative ones. People talk about resliance and poor little snowflakes, but these are very young children we're talking about. Experiences like this DO damage peoples' ability to positively engage with activities. I've personally met adults who have been permanently putt off by them, we probably all have.

I also think there are very few children who can't sing in tune when they're taught correctly and the material is chosen and arranged suitably, and a school with a decent music program should be able to assume any child who's been following it for a few years will have a usable sense of pitch in the same way they assume anyone who's completed all the early years phonics etc will be able to read to a certain level.

There are also more and less sensitive ways of selecting children for such things. Taking a class of 20 or 30 children and saying you're going to audition for three of them to play lead roles in a production is fine, because you're not singling out the remainder as losers. Anyone who doesn't get the role is not worse than everyone else, they just weren't the very top (which is partly dependent on suitability for the role, rather than anything general or absolute anyway, and much of this can be explained to them).

Auditioning a group of 20 for something and passing all except 3 of them is completely different. It no longer says "you're just like everyone else", but "everyone else is in normal/average range, except for you and the 2 other losers who are exceptionally below it". I'm shocked that nobody in the planning process would have considered this, to be honest.

For such a number of children, they should have just chosen two whole year groups. For a smaller number they might have been able to devise an audition process without such negative consequences.

I haven’t said once that the choir should be banned and have in fact argued for the choir to be inclusive a number of times, even if it means leaving my dd and her year group out