to ask how you, as a parent, feel about school shows?

[manicinsomniac]

I'm a performing arts teacher. I put on a wide range of shows every year, from informal class plays where they take their scripts on stage to a full scale musical with thousands of pounds worth of hired set and technical equipment.

Today, I have had two extremely vocal complaints.

One regarded the quality of some class plays performed earlier in the week. The parent felt that it was a long evening of very low quality drama that was hard to sit through. These particular shows followed a criteria of having a reasonable number of lines for every child and were cast by me saying 'put your hand up if you want a big part' etc. Everyone got the size of part they wanted. And yes, some of them were eye wateringly bad. But they were having fun, getting involved and learning.

The second complaint was about the big school musical and concerned a child in their last year of school not having a speaking part and never having had one in the past either (in the big musical that is. The child has had parts in smaller shows). The parent complained that it is always the same group of children in the big parts and that others would do just as well if they got the chance. Anyone who auditions for this show can be in it but I am very selective over the named roles. And yes, it is often the same children - because there are a good number of very talented children.

I feel like I can't win. I put everything into both types of shows and the inclusive ones get slated for being poor quality and the very competitive, high quality gets slated for not being inclusive enough!!!

What would you prefer to see as a parent -
a lower quality show that shares the parts around
or
a higher quality show that chooses the best for the parts?

Do you value and enjoy the show itself or just want to see you child on the stage?

eviltwins yes I do. Why shouldn't children with disabilities be included and only the "most talented" children be given lead parts year after year? If the OP cannot cast a show other than the same children year after year who have "talent" then she should move to a dedicated performing arts school.

I'd rather see all children have a part than have a high quality show. I will go to the actual theatre if I want to see a high quality show, I go to school performances to see my children and their classmates enjoy themselves.

lower quality play with everyone getting a part. I sat through 3 hours of touture last year and my 2 girls got a couple of lines each. I was absolutely raging ,I had no interest in watching other children, Would have walked out if I had known when my 2 were on. Felt like strangling the drama teacher. And had to pay for the sodding priviledge

I love school productions!

I like to see everyone getting the chance to take part. Some children naturally want to be in the limelight and others don't, but it's good for everyone to have a chance. IMO, it's not about what the parents want, but what's best for the group of children involved. I'm simply there to enjoy their work and to be honest, I enjoy seeing all the children, not just my own.

There are plenty of organisations to which parents can take their children if they want to take things more seriously. School productions are about including everyone, not showcasing a few.

Lower primary def spread the speaking parts to give as many children as possible the chance to have a go. Older kids need some quality control as no longer as 'cute' so a bit tortuous to sit through?!
Anyone who complains has no idea about the time and effort you put into it .

At primary everyone should have a chance. At secondary go for talent - the real world wants people who perform in every sense of the word in every line of work.

I once had a poor lad of eight playing Jesus and he weed himself copiously on stage. His disciples were wading through the puddle. I've had split leotards, lost props, children fighting savagely behind the scenes, A Wise Man who fell off the stage clutching his myrrh and broke his arm, a young teacher who wore a very tight sexy catsuit thing and excited all the dads, a boy with a lisp playing the Therriff of Nottingham (he wanted to do it) a six year old vicious little fairy who bashed another fairy with her wand on stage and so on. I've had off-tune pianos with half their notes missing, I've had curtains that either wouldn't open or wouldn't shut. But it was all wonderful and oh I honestly miss it terribly.

I love the school shows.

Had DC today and enjoyed them both. All the children have worked very hard. I love seeing the children having fun.

I love the theatre and expect a high level of entertainment, but school shows are not imo entertaining the parents, but teaching children.

I would like you, at upper KS2 / KS3, to reward effort and interest in at least some shows. If you have some kids who do hours of drama, dance lessons and practice etc each week, who will come to every rehearsal and learn all their lines as fast as they can, then they should get the bigger parts. Assuming that, as you do, you give the less keen but still interested kids a chance to take part in other shows.

Younger kids are different, and I like the shows with no main part and a line or two each.

Basically, I think you've got the balance right. We shouldn't shield our kids from all disappointment and competition - it's not a good preparation for life beyond school.

Nativities and y6 leavers' type productions should have parts for everyone. Everything else should be on merit. There's no point in doing things if they are not going to be as good as they can. The best rugby players get picked for the team. School productions should be no different.

at best even a good school production is just very amateur dramatics...

Actually, the secondary school productions we get here are so damn good I go to see them whether my children are in them or not preferably not, in fact, as I find them distracting.

At primary age I'd prefer to see everyone given a chance.

Fabulous you're the only one who is making a link between talent and disability. At no point did anyone say anything about disability or SEN. At secondary level though I am not going to pass over a talented child in order to give others a chance of a main part. That's not fair on anyone. SEN/disability doesn't come into it though - talent is talent.

I love school shows! Last year, DS' P7 year did a big production of Alice in Wonderland. All 120 children had time on stage (not all had speaking parts but they were broken into small groups so each child had a fun part) and it was fantastic. They had no academic work for a fortnight while they prepared for the show- when they weren't rehearsing they were building sets, designing tickets etc.

They did have auditions and the best parts went to the best students but everyone was involved.

Eviltwins what the OP said was she chose the same children every year for the main parts as they were "talented". I then made the point many children are "talented" in their own unique way. The OP is excluding children who she deems to not have talent. She is a performing arts teacher and has said she only chooses "talented" pupils year after year. That is not inclusion, that is exclusion, something which is very wrong on so many levels.

At secondary level though I am not going to pass over a talented child in order to give others a chance of a main part.

This is an awful statement to make, so many children are talented in their own way. Performances do not need to be perfect.

I would rather see lower quality with roles shared equally.

At DSs school same pretentious brats get the roles each time and to be honest puts me off going.

The correct term is a child with Down's Syndrome,not a Down's Syndrome child. Sorry,but this is one of my pet peeves.

I tink there is a place for both, a mixture over the whole show.

My dc are at a school with a large entry. They did try one year giving every child one line. They haven't taught them to project their voices and us a single microphone, and didn't sort it so they sat next to the person before them. After an hour and a half of one lines and 2 minute gap between each the parents were losing the will to live and begged the school never to do it that way again.

However what they standardly do now is:

1. Audition
2. Pick the same children they chose last year (about 10% of the pupils) to say lines.
3. pick about another 10% (again mostly the same as the previous year) to do something like stick a piece of tinsel on the tree. This is generally all but invisible and blink and you'll miss it if there is anything to be seen.
4. The remaining 80% are choir and sing various songs wearing school uniform.
5. The head teacher then sepend 10 minute raving about the absolutely amazing, fabulous, terrific, astounding etc. performance. We applaud about 10 times during this speech in which he encourages the parents to get louder and louder. I have found a way to make this bearable: I play BINGO now with words he uses.

Now my gripe is actually that the 10% aren't that good. We had last year the story that revolved round Mary not wanting to stay in a stable. She had several speeches where she was obviously meant to be getting angrier and angrier. The ended in the speech "Aaaagh! I am NOT going to stay in the stable!"... said in the same beautifully pronounced words-with not a shade of expression. The year before they only had about 5 Marys, all of whom had a solo-and 3 of whom were inaudiable with the microphone.

Now if they had picked children for these parts that hadn't performed before, then I would feel that they'd given them a go. Or if the children were noteably talented, I don't mind. (Dd1 had a child in her year who was a superb singer, and she always had the solo, and I never minded that, even though dd1 was probably the next best, she didn't compare, so I felt it was fair enough)

I often wonder what criteria they do choose the children on. Dd1 was one of the 10%-and yes, I did speak up and say I thought it was unfair at one point, she spoke up, saying others should have a turn and asked not to be given a main part, and they still gave it to her.
Otoh dd2 has got a minor part this year. Which is strange because actually she's a more natural actress that dd1, and her singing voice is nearly as good now.
And the other thing is: Dd2 is one of a minor part. They were meant to have a small line (together) at the end. Guess what. They decided it was taking too long so they've cut that bit. So having had one line in a group they've cut that bit, rather than cutting back something from the main person

Oh ffs. Yes, they are all talented in some way but is that the right way for the task in hand? A talented linguist or mathematician who can't sing is not much use for the big role in a musical!

You wouldn't put out a 'less talented' football/rugby/netball etc team for an important match just so that worse players got a turn would you?
Why should it be different for the big school musical?
Since you do class plays as well then everyone does get a go to perform anyway if they want to.
I do find sitting through an evening of poor shows quite painful though so it would depend how often I had to do this.
Perhaps a letter to parents explains the way you do things and why would clarify matters?

OP, I have two daughters, now left school. One absolutely loved drama and singing and was in her element in school musicals, the other less so. Your balanced approach sounds ideal. As a parent, to be honest, I didn't care that much how the shows were organised - what mattered to me wasn't that I had a great evening out (that wasn't the point) but that my DDs enjoyed themselves and learnt a lot. DD1 was the less-dramatically-inclined one. In primary school she loved being in the inclusive shows, and wanted me to see her doing her three-second thing whatever it happened to be. I also think it benefited her in terms of self-confidence, hearing her voice on stage and so on. DD2 who got bigger roles in more selective shows (usually musicals) in secondary school loved the selective element, I think. She got a lot out of being in high-standard musicals where everyone could learn the dance steps and perform them well, and where she was challenged to reach the highest possible standards.

What you're doing sounds right for the kids. If you have occasional ignorant parents who think the whole point is an evening out organised for their enjoyment, so be it. Don't let their ignorance get to you - they're so obviously wrong that it's not worth taking them seriously. And if only two parents complained, presumably the rest are perfectly happy with your approach.

Interesting as up to now my DS has been in "a best children get the parts plays" and with a new headmaster this year they did a "write some of the play yourselves and everyone gets a part play". The former type is a better performance for the parents because they are tried and tested formats but the latter was a better experience for the children and actually the children who usually get picked didn't really perform better than the ones who have never performed so the latter!

I can't see the point of non-inclusive school plays in primary. They are pretty bad regardless, at least give everyone a chance to get involved and perform if they want to. If you want a show just for the 10-20 talented kids, do it as part of a performing arts club.

I don't mind sitting through an awful play if my child is in it and I wouldn't turn up for a half decent one if my child wasn't in it. If I want to see a good play I go to the West End.

I wouldn't bother complaining to the teacher, I just wouldn't go, but I can see why other parents would feel peeved at not having a chance to see their kids perform in the big school play.

It gives me the rage when the same children get the good roles. My daughter is so enthusiastic and always auditions for roles and never gets anything. It's the same few children, usually that do dance and drama out of school getting the main parts, yes they might be better but they have more experience, if some of the others got the roles once in a while they might just surprise you!

Everyone should have a part, but the main parts should be given on merit.