Seriously?!?

[NearlySpring]

Dd (6) REALLY would love to learn to play a musical instrument, quite a few children in her year at school have the lessons (we see them coming in with their cellos and violins).

Today I enquired about booking them for her. They are £17 per child for 30 mins lesson once a week This is for 3 children sharing the lesson. PLUS £80 per term to hire a child sized violin or cello.

I am a single parent and I work full time. I have a decent job and decent salary and we are comfortable, but this seems like such a large amount of money to pay out each term in addition to the clubs she already does.

So I was thinking today... I wonder how all the others afford it, I know for a fact that two of the kids who have the lessons have parents who don't work. I looked on the school website to find out that if you don't work you get FREE music lessons.

AIBU in feeling that music lessons are a luxury and shouldn't be free for people on benefits?

Maybe I AIBU and just a little green eyed that I work so hard and cannot afford something that I could get for free if I didn't work. Not benefit claimant bashing here, it's a hard time and many people are being made redundant, I totally understand lots of people on benefits right now just can't find work (I was in same position not all that long ago)....

But seriously, free music lessons?!?

Oh come on, this is ridiculous.

I believe that in a fair and just society individuals who can't find work should be supported to have a decent quality of life.

However, this is not a sensible use of public funds at this particular point in time.

It's ridiculous that this was ever part of a benefits package IMO. How could that have ever been sustainable? If music is so necessary, why can't it be incorporated in an inclusive way into education? Why is it targeted as relating to benefits at all? There are many, many ways that children in low income families could be supported to develop musical talents - someone has already mentioned town bands with instruments for hire etc.

I normally don't agree with threads about "the squeezed middle classes" but highly expensive hobbies can't be subsidised by the benefits system.

FFS. Lots of people on benefits DO work - they just don't get paid enough to live on. DH does 50+hrs a week as the manager of a pharmacy and earns £17k . I'll earn more than him straight away when I'm qualified as a teacher. But for the next few years we will get benefits and I feel no guilt about that, or the fact we get extras like free prescriptions (good thing too, DH is coeliac and couldn't afford gluten free food without this)

:o

tethersend PMSL at playing a purse stringed instrument!

Even if every single person on benefits worked, it wouldn't make free music lessons a sensible part of a benefits package.

It's all a bit paternalistic to give free music lessons to kids assuming that they will become budding virtuosos instead of "slumping about on a sofa". Both ideas involve ridiculous and outrageous stereotypes e.g. that middle class pursuits are obviously "better" and "life affirming" and that kids on benefits are apathetic ne'er do wells. The kids who are supported and encouraged by their parents or have that little tiny spark that they want something more will improve their life chances and those who don't, won't. Shoving a violin at a kid or giving them music lessons isn't The Answer to intergenerational poverty and unemployment. I am assuming that this bright idea didn't actually come along to support the children of the long-term sick or temporarily employed. These are always borne of some Victorian desire to "better" the poor. It's insulting rubbish and the country CAN'T afford it.

And that, surely, is the way to do it.

i think it is/would be nice if they gave free music lessons to kids whose parents can't afford to pay for them especially £17 a pop, that's really steep

No I do agree that free music lessons are a waste of money (in the current situation anyway) - subsidised would be better if that were still affordable. Music is a great gateway. I'd love my 2 to learn but cannot afford lessons - luckily I used to teach piano though so I can do it myself :o

I like it when schools do lunchtime clubs so the costs are reduced - DSDs' school did guitar, keyboards, djembe drumming and recorder, so it was virtually free as they had they had the equipment there anyway.

Anyway I just get really pissed off when people assume that everyone on benefits is a non-working scrounger because it is not true!

It is the same at our school. I also know that a friends dd was very upset (y9 at secondary) because a trip had been arranged for Alton Towers her Mum can't afford to send her (low income) but the parents who claim FSM are going for free.

Obviously the parents are not going but the y9's on fsm are.

But the issue is that an economy cannot run on what is "nice".

I think the current government are a bunch of tossers in many, many respects. On one point I do agree with them, though. Schemes like these need to be run by big businesses/multinationals "giving something back" to the community, not the state.

The state paying for this type of thing increases benefit claimant bashing because it makes it look like a family on benefits has a much better quality of life than they, in fact, do.

Is music not taught during the school day anymore? Throughout my whole school years we had music lessons....mostly taken with dread as I am completely tone dear

Going away from topic a bit but:

"we get extras like free prescriptions (good thing too, DH is coeliac and couldn't afford gluten free food without this)"

Why do you need food on prescription. Is coeliac disease not wheat related? Can't see why you would need special food when it is actually quite easy to find wheat alternatives in this day and age. And yes, I do know what I am talking about.

DD's guitar lessons ar £40 per term in a group of four. We also had to buy her guitar (a cheapie off amazon). Music lessons are subsidised, though not free for children of parents on benefits.

I pay for my neighbour's DD's lessons and I subsidies my neighbours children's school trips too. I hate to see children missing out on enrichment activities, especially when it's a small amount (relatively) for me and a large amount for my unemployed neighbours and their 4 children.

FreudianSlippery It saddens me to think that someone who posts "FFS" on a forum will be teaching our DC.

Think yourselves luckey. DD plays the alto sax, lessons were only £30 a term...which is great...except the chuffin sax cost me £400 quid ! With case etc.

She now gets free lessons, because she left her previous school, the teacher found her so rewarding to work with he takes time out of his own day each week to go to her new school and she has her lesson. Which is lovely. But he won't accept any payment.

DD has gained so much confidence from being able to learn an instrument, it's something that should be available as widely as possible imo

"FreudianSlippery It saddens me to think that someone who posts "FFS" on a forum will be teaching our DC."

Hahahahahahahaha you're funny. It's a forum, not a classroom of ten year olds! You realise what a ridiculous argument that is, right?

Okay music isn't a necessity. I can see the argument that children shouldn't suffer if their parents are feckless - though of course many people on benefits are not feckless and either work hard or have fallen on hard times.

But i do think that families with no parents who are working shouldn't have access to things taht those working can't afford. And the reality is that situations like this, do encourage benefit bashing.

The changes to housing benefit are going to negatively impact on lots of people already struggling. But they have been possible politically because of all those stories in the tabloids about families living in amazing houses in well of areas. Obviously these families are a tiny proportion of people on housing benefit, but the changes wil affect many many people.

Just to say like another poster, that I know parents who choose not to work or who choose to only work part time - including family members. They openly say they are either better off than they would be working the type of low paid job they could get, or that the extra income would be very minimal. Often it is not the actual income that tips the balance, but the freebies they are entitled to.

I dont think music lessons are a necessity and I reckon there are far more urgent things for money to be spent on!!!

No way should the music lessons be free for people on benefits and that is not a benefit bashing........I would rather see the money spent on other things

I do not think OP is benefit bashing.

The way I understand it is like this, she works but still has not got enough money to afford music lessons her Dcs would like. Other people who cannot afford it either, for lack of working (voluntary or not) are subsidised. If not subsidising children of parents on benefit is "punishing the children for their parents behaviour" as some said isn't not subsidising children whose parents work but do not earn enough to pay music lessons punish those children too?

I don't think you are being unreasonable.

I agree that music tuition at that age of 6 is a luxury, and I say that as someone who enjoyed music and studied it to the highest level in school.

I had whole-class recorder and singing lessons at primary school and desperately wanted to learn to play violin but my parents couldn't afford it (and it wasn't offered at my state school so would have been private). At high school I took up the trumpet - purely because they had funding for extra brass tuition that year so I knew there was a better chance of me being chosen and I was just so keen to play any instrument. I got use of a school instrument for free and lessons for free and took that on to get top mark in my Standard Grade, A for Higher music and B for Sixth Year Studies music (equivalent of first year uni). Not having the chance to play an instrument at the age of 6 did not disadvantage me.

If you are keen for your daughter to learn now (which I do think would have benefits, though is not a necessity) you should look at getting a student to give her 1:1 tuition. In my final two years of school I tutored a boy (aged about 10/11) in trumpet. I got £5 for half hour and thought that was loads of money, but it was obviously a lot less for his parents than paying for professional lessons. He seemed to really enjoy the lessons and continued playing the trumpet at high school and I got a lot out of it as well.

OP if you're in London there will be no shortage of very talented young music students who would give your daughter 1:1 lessons for much less than the school charge. Try advertising on Gumtree or contacting music colleges.

GEORGEOUSX

That's the funniest thing I ever heard! Teachers must never swear Eh? Not even in the virtual world of mumsnet? Ha Ha! You had better home educate because you'd get a shock if you saw what teachers are really like. FFS!

I fear you have misunderstood my point. It saddens me that someone with such a lack of articulation will be teaching - that's all.

As a teacher, I too am shocked and saddened at FreudianSlippery's use of profanities.

It brings my beloved profession into disrepute and makes us look like a right bunch of cunts.