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?

I think if taught right they are hugely beneficial. Music notation is a great way to learn basic fractions. Music can be such a release and joy. But then I learnt music very young and did an A level in it (it was incredibly academic at that stage as well).

Those that really lose are the less traditionally academic. My cousin is dyslexic. Found it hard to read but had no problems with music and is really talented. The arts show there is breadth to life. School shouldn't just focus on academics but prepare people for life. Skills learnt in the arts can be transferred elsewhere.

Suzuki believed that music training made a child a more noble being. I believed that any child with the right training could learn to play a musical instrument. According to him, talent is made by hard work rather than something you are born with. The belief that you can affect your destiny by hardwork more fashionably known as the growth mindset. Suzuki had invented it long before Carol Dewerk was born.

I feel that music has taught my children that hard work brings results. Maybe this is why children who do a musical instrument do better in school rather than the music lessons themselves. Children can take risks and fail with a musical instrument. They quickly learn that if they do not do the practice they will make no progress. If the child does practice then they quickly become more proficent than their mates do nothing.

NewLife but do you know the music curriculum in 'most' schools? Have you heard of Musical Futures? It's worth reading up on and asking the music teacher at your DCs' school if they know about it and are using it in the curriculum. Any music teacher worth their salt should be constantly revising and updating their department's curriculum, and be subject to scrutiny if they're not.

I works both ways, as languages are beneficial for music too. Musical instructions in scores are often in Italian or other languages, classical singers need to be able to sing in various languages etc. Music has a number of similar characteristics to language and its use. It's a way of conveying messages by sound, not usually specific but certainly in music for films etc. the music can make a huge difference as to what the audience perceives.

How brains see music as language

Charles Limb, Associate Professor of Otolaryngology at John Hopkins Hospital from 1996 to 2015, chose to map what happened in the brains of musicians as they played.

"Many scientists believe that language is what makes us human, but the brain is wired to process acoustic systems that are far more complicated than speech, Limb says."

"If the brain evolved for the purpose of speech, it's odd that it evolved to a capacity way beyond speech," Limb said. "So a brain that evolved to handle musical communication—there has to be a relationship between the two. I have reason to suspect that the auditory brain may have been designed to hear music and speech is a happy byproduct."

"Brain areas linked to meaning shut down during improvisational jazz interactions. In other words, this music is syntactic, not semantic."

Language Learning Tip: Use Music to Learn a Foreign Language

I speak seven languages and listening to lyrical music in these languages was fundamental to my being able to copy the melody of these languages and remember pronunciation and vocabulary. The science of language learning shows that not only is the previously considered “critical period” of language acquisition longer than previously thought but that multilingual people are “mental jugglers”. Music is a way to keep your language juggling fluid and natural.

Yoko

There is little classroom teaching of music in our area.
Some schools don't offer GCSE at all and those that do, have kids gaining really good grades without reading a note of music or playing an instrument to any decent standard.

I don't think that the standard is like this across the country and think you must be unique, there really aren't any Oxford Music Degree teachers here, most are lucky to have done GCSE and have a grade 8, which let's face it a child can have.

I know the teachers here as we have dc who attended local schools, as did dd for a while before H.ed and specialist music school.
She is very gifted but even the dc who are good not gifted particularly have outgrown classroom teaching by secondary.

It is my personal experience that music teachers (here) aren't up to the job, have very little knowledge, certainly not specialist as other subject teachers.
Music seems to be an additional extra and it shouldn't be.
GCSE should certainly reflect the difference in outcome for those who can play well and those who can't. The ability for both to do as well/ gain same grades imo renders the GCSE as useless.

My DD is about to start the GCSE course. We've been told that it's quite tough. And that's in the context of her having a grade 7 and a grade 6. In fact a friend with a very musical son who's been learning singing and an instrument since he was 7 or 8 says that it was his toughest GCSE.
From what I've heard, to get the top possible grade in the GCSE you need to play a grade 5 level piece very well. It's true that you don't get a higher grade for a piece that is above grade 5.
I think that many musicians don't want to become classroom teachers, particularly in state schools, because it is a tough job. It must be very depressing being a music teacher in a typical comprehensive, where only a tiny minority of children play an instrument. That is in large part due to cost. Classical music in this country is now largely the preserve of the privately educated.

All the secondary school teachers I have met have had music or music related degrees. They have also been reasonable musicians.

NewLife wow, that sounds dire! Good luck to your DD with her music, it really is the most rewarding path in life.

Thanks Yoko

We do have some excellent peri's and the music service is brilliant.
As soon as a child starts playing at around grade one standard they are encouraged to join an ensemble. It's just the school classes that are dire and not fair for those who really want to progress.

I disagree. More emphasis should be placed on science at primary level.
Stuff that kids are taught at 13 could be mastered by an average 7 or 8 year old.

The general science knowledge of an average adult is pitiful.

pearly students at my school have science lessons every day. I can't comment on the content as I don't know what they're learning.

It can vary between schools- given the knowledge most kids have by the time they get to secondary school the quality isn't up to much,

The problem lies in that most primary school teachers have no science education themselves- there is no science qualification requirement at all to get into a teacher training course, many teachers have only a GCSE in a science subject. Science is often the most poorly taught area at primary level.

Sp "science" at primary school is often not much more than nature study, healthy eating, weather etc.

I find this appalling. Our kids need to be taught the basics of science, atomic theory, the behaviour and states of matter, electromagnetic spectrum, introduced to genetics and computer coding. These subjects run alongside areas like critical thinking and scientific methodology.

We live in a massively technological age where career opportunities and social advances are now being based on our scientific understanding.

YokoUhOh perhaps you should take the time to see what your kids are learning.

pearly I don't have school-age children. I teach in a secondary school, we do some cross-curricular stuff but there's no time to observe other lessons.

The creative industries are our biggest export.

yoko I have no idea where you found that information but you are wrong.

UK Biggest exports are as follows ( for 2015) the latest figures)

1.Machines, engines, pumps: US$63.9 billion (13.9% of total exports)
2.Gems, precious metals: $53 billion (11.5%)
3..Vehicles: $50.7 billion (11%)
4.Pharmaceuticals: $36 billion (7.8%)
5.Oil: $33.2 billion (7.2%)
6.Electronic equipment: $29 billion (6.3%)
7.Aircraft, spacecraft: $18.9 billion (4.1%)
8.Medical, technical equipment: $18.4 billion (4%)
9.Organic chemicals: $14 billion (3%)
10.Plastics: $11.8 billion (2.6%)

Science and technology are crucial to every one of these industries.

Are those figures for products only, so not counting the "exports" of things like touring stage shows or art exhibitions? Do they include "virtual" items that are bought online, such as music downloads, which don't have to be physically imported?

Not sure where the government think the actors who are on their tv, the musicians on their radio, the dancers on the stage etc etc come from as they clearly don't value training young people in the arts!

Yes of course science is very important. But I also think a rounded education is important too. Life and humanity aren't purely about any one subject.

Our world is both scientific and creative. How many people in the UK don't hear any music in a given week, or read any books, avoid all TV/radio, or look at any pictures, or choose clothes/shoes that they think have the best design? A computer can figure out formulae but it can't appreciate a novel, concert, picture, photo in a way that people do.

YANBU.

I did fine art and now teach Sen pupils (primary).

Pattern in art, music, sp and l in drama. The children come alive in these subjects. Don't even get me started on the amount of science in art!!!! And fine motor skills, gross motor skills, - the links continue all the way to the top.

Just look at da Vinci - artist or scientist?

People say I'm an artist and creative but I actually identify more with science subjects.

Architecture - art, and maths, science.

Archaeologists- history (English) science, art.

Ict and music, ict and art, you need numeracy skills and literacy skills in ict.

But the last government kicked the then new curriculum that would have emphasised all this under the carpet, as well as ditching creative partnerships (which wasn't the arts, it was creative approaches with people outside teaching eg architects snd archaeologists).

Yes! Music and fractions!

This is a good article:

www.gov.uk/government/news/creative-industries-worth-almost-10-million-an-hour-to-economy

It's all academic, of course; as PP have said, the arts are worth pursuing for their own ends.

I absolutely hated the arts and couldn't wait to drop them so I could focus on something more academic.

Really un-informed comment.

History is one of the most rigorous and demanding of all the A levels - demands skills of interpretation, critical analysis, making judgements, evaluation. These are all high-order skills. Extremely academic.

And music, as has been said, can be an incredibly complex and demanding subject.

They would fall into place if there was more holistic project-based teaching, but focusing on exams and league tables mean that all teachers can do is tutor their students for those. Tis what happens when people are more focused on bits of paper rather than forming the whole child!

Singing, music and drama are OK if you are into that kind of thing. Its a bit like PE. Those that love it try to force it on everyone else.

It's bad teaching in both cases that is the problem really isn't it? Because I think most people would agree that exercise is important for health and ideally PE should allow children to access a lot of different exercises while they are still young so they can find what suits them. And so schools should offer a range of team sports, a range of individual sports, but also some fun exercise like dancing or yoga or climbing (or anything else that floats your boat).

The benefits of the arts are less well documented (I know there are academic papers on this but it's not as in your face as the benefits of exercise) but there should be the opportunity to experience all the arts as both a creator and a consumer when at school. Otherwise you continue to have the class divide where parents with the education and the money can let their kids do all this as part of their home life and those that don't find it much harder.

It's bad teaching in both cases that is the problem really isn't it
Really? I wouldn't say so. The teachers at my school were very good, I just didn't like the subjects.

tulips if you read my consequent post I expanded on what I said and explained it was a poor choice of words to convey what I meant.