To think if more emphasis was put on the arts in schools then core subjects would fall into place

[ConfuciousSayWhat]

I get that the funds aren't there for the arts and that in times of funding cuts they are the first thing to go, but Aibu to think the arts support academic learning?

Music opens up maths, languages, science
Drama opens up literature and languages
Art opens up maths, physics, biology

Nevermind how they feed into technology, design and architecture.

Aibu to be saddened at the loss of focus on the arts in schools?

Well I have said it before DD was doing steady Ds with occasional Cs &more than a few Es then she started dancing more seriously and her grades went up to steady Cs with occasional Bs and no Ds

The only difference was the increased dance & the move into GCSE year

(I'm totally not spoiling for a fight, btw, I'm just used to explaining to parents why my subject is on the curriculum...I know most people's experience of classroom music is, historically, a negative one, which is why I want to tell you all how it's changed!).

the nature of school music lessons means they're often dumbed down for the kids who haven't studied music and therefore of little benefit

I don't know why music isn't taught in ability groups. Some children will be proficient at playing an instrument, reading music etc. when others have never done it before.

At ds's school even the children who play an instrument arn't usually that far ahead in Year 7. Maybe Grade 2/3 at the most.

They all start learning about rhythm, time signatures & notes on the treble clef & the rest of the class soon catches up.

My son has a lovely music teacher. He struggles with the social skills required for group work, but I still think the subject is good for him. Learning that many songs are made from 4 chords has really encouraged him with his guitar.

I don't think music lessons have been dumbed down at all. Ds has been extended sideways. Conventional music lessons often offer little opportunity for improvisation or composing. A good music teacher knows how to differentiate and inspire. There is a difference between grades and musicality. Some Sen kids do well at music.

YANBU at all, the arts are very important and I would love to see more in terms of funding and provision made for it as curricular not extra curricular.

I can't agree with your suggestion of Arts opening up Science, technology, and Maths.
My dd a gifted musician is not really good at any of these.
She is good at Languages and Drama though.

Most arts-related jobs don't involve performing in public. E.g. events manager, illustrator, librarian, art/music/drama therapist, publishing, teaching, arts administration, broadcasting, audio engineer, recording video game soundtracks, costume designer, set designer, cameraman, gallery owner, agent, photographer, stage manager or animator.

Yes, but you still need to have an interest in the arts.

Another point is we live oop north, and unfortunately as most of the arts scene is London/city based we are not exposed to it, nor can easily access it.

Lots of graduate jobs need strong communication skills. There are plenty of jobs where you have to present your ideas to a group. Drama helps someone to control nerves

Another point is we live oop north, and unfortunately as most of the arts scene is London/city based we are not exposed to it, nor can easily access it.

I agree that a good deal of arts activities take place in London, but know of many in the north too. Most of it's in cities though as you say. It would be fantastic if such things could be more accessible to those outside the large cities.

Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham have plenty of arts. Most parts of the U.K. have access to a major city by train. Lack of arts is surely mire of a reason to have it in schools.

And Leeds too.

Certainly in our county there is absolutely no financial help for music. In fact instrumental lessons in school are often more expensive than if you have them out of school. And the County got rid of every single music group that it ran, a few years ago - they all disappeared overnight. The few music groups for children that there are now, eg classical orchestra and jazz band, are extremely expensive and the increased cost has meant a huge loss in membership, and a reduction in the level of playing, as they now accept anyone, with no need to audition.
Of course even richer kids are fine, as many private schools provide great music-making opportunities. One of my DCs is at private school, and she is in a large number of music groups and seems to play in some concert or other every week or so. The other, in state school, will have very little opportunity in comparison.

No private schools here and our LA support lessons in music for those in receipt of certain benefits.
even those not gaining support are only charged £35 a term at the most and this is for as many ensembles as they are able to join. There are also discounts for siblings.
They are also award winning orchestra and Jazz orchestra too.
Compared with most areas though, not many children play instruments.
About 300 throughout the borough.
School music lessons are abysmal though as the curriculum, even GCSE is a bit poor. The teachers aren't really musical that's why they teach.

NewLife4Me as stated numerous times on this thread, I'm a classroom music teacher in a comp. I have a degree from Oxford and grade 8 in 3 instruments. It's not fair to say that secondary music teachers aren't musical and that's why they teach - completely untrue.

At my DD's state secondary, not only are music lessons not subsidised for any pupils, the music teachers have to pay a room hire fee for each music lesson they teach. That fee is passed on to parents, making music lessons really expensive. So the school is profiting financially from the children learning instruments.
The "they can't do so they teach" idea is unfair. Making a decent living as a performing musician is extremely difficult, and involves a great deal of luck, connections, etc. Even top professional musicians teach as well as performing.

I think the problem with music education now is that it's not at all well funded or even considered worthwhile in some schools, and the government's changes to music provision over the years haven't helped.

Crazy funding cuts put music education at risk

According to the ISM (Incorporated Society of Musicians), national music education funding fell from £82.5m in 2010-11 to £58m in 2014-15.

Good music education only 'for minority of pupils'

About 150 local authority music trusts were re-shaped into 120 music hubs, in 2012.

"A quality music education only reaches a minority of pupils in England's schools, an Ofsted report has said."

"The report said the new hubs had bought "energy" and "vitality" to music teaching."

"They continued to provide instrumental teaching and support orchestras and ensembles, choirs, festivals and holiday music courses."

"But it added that while this was "essential" work, it only reached a minority of pupils and "too often" schools expected very little of pupils."

"They failed to ensure that all pupils understood, and could use practically, common musical features such as notation, time signatures, scales chords and key signatures."

"Many primary schools considered, without good reason, that pupils were not ready for such learning involving musical theory, and believed they would not enjoy it."

"Michael Cladingbowl, director of schools policy at Ofsted, said: "Music is a demanding academic discipline, developed through exciting practical musical activity."

"However, the vast majority of the schools visited shied away from teaching pupils about fundamental aspects of music as they thought it too difficult.

"All children, not just the privileged few, should enjoy a good music education."

Brassed off: the music teachers on zero hours contracts

"This week Michele Lomas will give her last lesson for Wiltshire Music Service. After six years teaching brass instruments to children in the area, she is being made redundant. She plans to continue on a freelance basis, but will no longer belong to a pension scheme, nor be eligible for sickness and maternity pay. She will have to fund her own travel, public liability insurance and training. “It’s not so much about the income, as I know I will be able to get teaching work – it’s losing my pension and sick pay I’m most worried about,” she says. “Conditions for teachers have been getting worse for some time, but this is the final nail in the coffin.”

Music education in England: about to be decimated? (The Guardian, 5 June 2014)

"potentially, the government is turning back to the scorched earth policy for music education in the 1980s that resulted from Margaret Thatcher's decision that local authorities didn't have to ringfence the money they gave to their music services. That meant that the majority of Local Authorities simply didn't bother spending money on music, and free music education for hundreds of thousands of pupils - one of the signature achievements of post-war British schools - disappeared almost overnight."

"The "they can't do so they teach" idea is unfair. Making a decent living as a performing musician is extremely difficult, and involves a great deal of luck, connections, etc. Even top professional musicians teach as well as performing."

The life style of a professional musician doesn't fit in with family responsibilities. Dd violin teacher was a sucessful professional musician, but the lifestyle did not fit in with kids.

Ds had a guitar teacher who played the bass guitar for the original Doctor Who theme tune. He is semi retired and he teaches guitar in three schools to keep his brain active. To put it mildly he had done very well financially. He teaches because he enjoys it. He does not need the money.

Even very successful classical musicians make only a modest living (apart from the few mega-stars). My DD has a teacher who has an international reputation, and is still working in their 80s at least in part because they need the money.

No, music doesn't teach you maths or languages.

Music does however help with maths and languages. For instance, it helps develop a good ear, which you certainly need for languages, and music theory is very mathematical, so helps develop maths skills.

You can be an excellent linguist and mathematician without any musical skills whatsoever. Music should be taught for music's sake, not as a prop for maths or languages.

2 birds with 1 stone is a good thing.

Musicianship develops your ear = likely to have a better accent/be a better speaker of MfL

Yoko

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one obviously. Although, as I stated a lot of music provision is poor in schools due to the curriculum which is terrible.

I agree that music should be taught for music sake not as a prop to other subjects, but I don't think the prop always applies.
I have seen it in reverse that people who are good at maths and Science have been extended sideways with music and done very well.

However, it doesn't always work the other way round. My dd will be lucky to scrape a pass in maths, sci, tech etc and has extra support.
Yet, there's a good chance she'll have 4 grades 8 by 14 and 2 music diplomas before leaving school. She had the old level 8 at the end of year 3 primary.