To think music/art/drama etc should be optional at schools?

[LunaLoveg00d]

I have one child who is in his second year at secondary school (Scotland) who is so un-musical it is not true. He cannot carry a tune in a bucket, has zero interest in music, cannot differentiate between a tuba or a violin when he hears it and has never shown any interest in playing an instrument. We have just had his end of year report which on the whole is VERY positive apart from the music/art reports which basically say he is unhappy in the class, makes some effort but has a long way to go and his ability is very low. He is very down about the fact he has to endure 2 periods a week of compulsory music and another of art for another year before he can drop them. Drama he enjoys a bit more, but he has very little interest in it either.

i think the problem I have with these "talent" subjects is that unlike the traditional maths/english/science, they can only be taught to some extent. Even the best teachers in the world are not going to turn a child with zero artistic or musical talent into Picasso or Mozart. Or even someone who could pass an exam in it. On the flip side, good teachers can support and teach most children (obviously excluding some with SEN) to achieve passes in English, Maths, Science, History etc.

So would it not be better to leave the talent subjects at secondary to those who have ability in them?

YABVVU. Should we let those that struggle with maths drop it?
He can learn history and appreciation of music and art, same as anyone else of his inate intelligence. Maybe Scottish curriculum doesn't have those as a focus, but England does, they do listening and analysis definitely. By dropping them it would teach children to give up rather than persevering. Art was always my weakest subject, but I still got enjoyment from a space in the timetable that wasn't academic study in the same way (curriculum probably changed since then, mind you!). That gave me a chance to be in a less pressured environment, to be creative, with teachers that had radically different outlooks on life from other staff, often fairly alternative lifestyles. An appreciation of art and music leads to a lifetime of enjoyment. The art history I learned was v useful when visiting cities and galleries as an adult.

Photography is usually part of the art curriculum

I think it probably is in son's school too. But only for the older ones - the ones who have opted to carry on with Art towards exam level.

[Misses point] DS used Lego in a Y7 - age 11/12 -Art homework. The tasks in art are often sufficiently open-ended that a variety of media - conventional or unconventional - can be used to complete them.

[More serious point] Education in art, music, drama etc are not just about 'being a musician / artist / actor'. It is also about 'learning about / to appreciate music, art and all forms of drama'.

It is also really valuable for a generally able child to have a subject at which they REALLY have to work to achieve even vaguely acceptable results - and it sounds as if your DS is not getting this value, because he isn't working, and you are encouraging him not to by your attitudes.

DS is genuinely terrible at art. However, he knows enough about it to be a tolerable companion in an art gallery or museum or NT property, and he has learned a work ethic about 'doing his best and putting in the hours' that he wouldn't have gained from being allowed to drop it and just do Maths and History, both of which come easily to him.

Art, music and drama are all elements of a genuinely civilised society, and education - proper education, not just pass-the-exams stuff - should include a grounding in all 3.

Agree they are not about talent, any more than maths is. The fact you think this suggests you were badly taught, so have no idea what these subjects might cover.

Bad teaching and curricular marginalisation of these subjects is a problem. Our school art lessons were ok-ish, some principles of drawing but a lot of 'just try this idea'. Music was a trivial filler subject and taught accordingly (quite fun but learnt very little).

What I think should be being taught is some basic principles of music and art, a bit of history and awareness of different styles. So basics of how to read music, what instruments are in an orchestra, periods and styles. Not playing an instrument. Listening yes, that's a skill that can be improved with practice. Otherwise knowledge, not talent.

"You do need talent to progress in Music and Art though - if you can't sing or are tone deaf you will not progress however much you are taught."

That's just not true.

Two of my DC have a violin teacher who didn't start to learn to play until he was 13. When he was 21, he was playing with the LSO.

I have to disagree with you.

Teaching art, drama and music in schools helps to give them an importance and seriousness in children's minds. We can't all be good at everything, but some are good at maths, but struggle at art (like me). Those that are good at art get to be good at something that others respect. And those that aren't learn to work hard at something, and improve (if not not get very far with it).

Art, music and drama are not just about doing, as others have said. They are also about learning to appreciate themselves.

And as others have pointed out, culture, as a nation, is one of our main exports. Why would we not want to ensure that continued?

YABVVVU

As a further point, many children - particularly but not exclusively those from relatively deprived backgrounds - rely on schools to expose them to the wider horizons of 'culture' - art in all its forms, music in all its forms, drama in all its forms. I don't know if it the same in Scotland, but the grounding given in these subjects - particularly practical music and elements of art such as sculpture, graphic art etc - in English primaries is not always sufficient to unearth those with genuine talent by the age of 11, partly because primary teachers are by definition generalists (my ability to pick out genuine talent in e.g. athletics or art is, I would be entirely willing to confess, not reliable). By enforcing a couple of years of secondary teaching by subject experts, you give the greatest opportunity for those with potential to excel to be identified - and give everyone, however small their exposure to e.g. classical music, art, theatre in their home environment - a small grounding in the subject.

You can't teach anyone to sing or play an instrument. There is an aspect of natural talent for music and art and no matter how hard some people try they will never progress beyond the absolute basics of playing an instrument or drawing.

I'm tone deaf and despite years of violin lessons and passing a few garden exams, I couldn't progress any further because I failed the note recognition aspect. I couldn't pick out a guitar chord or tell of one finger is one the wrong fret. My dh has never had a music lesson in his life and first picked up a guitar in his mid teens and he's bloody brilliant, he can hear a song and teach himself to play it. My dd and ds seem to have inherited his talent.

I do think they are important though, not because of the learning to draw/sing/act aspect but because it gives a wider cultural knowledge of artists and musicians, drama helps massively with public speaking and interacting with others. I hated art at school because I'm crap at drawing and the focus was very much on artistic ability, had there been a balance with learning about Dali or M.C. Escher I'd have liked it much more.

The arts are important but there needs to be less emphasis on ability and more on effort when it comes to grades. It's horrible being a straight A student in everything else but getting D or E in art and music because you just aren't artistic and no matter how long you try to draw an apple it still looks like a wonky ball with a stick on top.

YABU I am tone deaf but still played flute in wind band etc. It taught me many skills including reading music, understanding timing, staying calm when performing publicly etc. I was also rubbish at art (never did drama so can't comment) but it didn't matter. I happily drew things and stuck things together.

As a straight A student in all the subjects which you seem to consider important I have no doubt that it was important that I understood that I had weaknesses.

The arts are enriching and I think year 9 is the correct cut off point.

It's very unlikely that your son is actually tone-deaf. In reality only 2-5% of the population suffer from amusia.

Without creative subjects how would children learn to think 'outside the box'? How would they learn to come up with creative solutions to everyday problems? I have a performing arts degree and don't work in any related field anymore but my degree helps me on a daily basis.

You don't have to be good at something to appreciate someone who is. Your son may not be any good at making music, but I am sure he listens to it.

He may have no interest in an acting career but I bet he watched films and TV. Damn it, he may even enjoy going to the theatre someday?

Tiny: DS got the highest possible effort grades in art, and was always 'below expectations'. As we praise and reward effort, rather than attainment, and so does the school, he got high grades in what everyone saw as 'the important bit'.

OK, the 'below expectations' means that he hasn't taken art to GCSE.... but the important lesson to focus on what you can control (the effort that you put in) has been embedded.

It's horrible being a straight A student in everything else but getting D or E in art and music because you just aren't artistic and no matter how long you try to draw an apple it still looks like a wonky ball with a stick on top.

This with bells on. That is exactly what I am trying to get at. Wonky ball with a stick on is a lot better than my son can do though. We do try to make sure he has cultural appreciation - he loved the afternoon we spent in the British Museum looking at things like the Parthenon Sculptures and the carvings from the Middle East. He is very into history and they look at art/music which comes from certain historical periods where relevant. Some of his English lessons involve taking songs as source material and analysing what the singer is trying to communicate. All that is using music or art as inspiration or linking it in to other areas of the curriculum and is great - forcing a child to draw a still life or try to play two handed on a keyboard where they have no ability whatsoever is a lot less great.

Understanding music and art is as important as understanding maths. Doesn't mean you have to be able to play an instrument or draw well, but every civilised citizen should have some understanding of these important human activities.

Our children will be the next generation of gallery, concert & theatre goers. We have some amazing galleries, artists, musicians, orchestras - why would you NOT want your child to be given an introduction to this part of human endeavour?

Maths is a talent, linguistic ability is a talent etc. Following your logic, anyone who lacks the talent to be a professional mathematician, or fluent in another language, should be allowed to drop those subjects at age 11.

Oh, basic maths and languages are useful in themselves and teach skills and a habit of learning useful in other fields? Ditto learning about art and music.

Is it that your DS is strong in other subjects and you see his poor performance in arts subjects as unreasonably blotting his perfect copybook? You want to excise them from the curriculum to make him look good? That would be a very spoilt and anti-academic attitude to take and would serve your DS extremely badly in future, when university courses and jobs aren't moulded to fit his special talents.

I really think you should be encouraging him to understand that everyone finds some things difficult and that trying your best and improving, even if you're never the best, is an essential skill for future study and for life.

The only entire lessons I remember from school are music lessons, hearing the differences between baroque, classical, romantic periods and world music. It has enhanced my life way more than my understanding of vectors in maths or Hook's law in Physics has! You are projecting your own prejudices onto your son and narrowing his mind in doing so.

why would you NOT want your child to be given an introduction to this part of human endeavour?

He's had 7 years of "introduction" at Primary School. Including things like taking part in Scottish Opera workshops and seeing a child friendly opera performance at the theatre. That's a large amount of introduction. 100 minutes a week of Music at school is an awful lot.

I think it's good for a straight A student to not be good at everything, it certainly helped me to control my ego and I believe has made me a better person. Also it sends the wrong message I think if you say that someone can stop doing something because they aren't good at it. There are parts of my jobs that I struggle with more than others, my boss wouldn't be very amused if I just decided not to do them!

Yabu, Art and design isn't just about picking up a paint brush. If furthered on, it can lead into jobs in Archecture, Digital Design, Animation, Prop Design, Interior Design and so on.

"It's horrible being a straight A student in everything else but getting D or E in art and music because you just aren't artistic and no matter how long you try to draw an apple it still looks like a wonky ball with a stick on top."

Except that isn't how they're marked, art isn't graded just on what's produced, there's all the written work as well as showing that evening you're not amazing at drawing you've understood the techniques.

My DS excels at maths and sciences, but is dyslexic and autistic...so English was always lower than everything else, because he can't spell and doesn't naturally grasp imagery. Tough, that's just how some things work, you can't sail through every subject some you actually have to put effort in to get better at them.

Also you go to school to get an education, not a job. You are putting the cart before the horse.

But is effort a of his still life is REALLY bad and effort b is slightly better and effort c after teaching and doing his homework really well is slightly better still, then however badly his final effort compares with another child's, he has made really good progress due to his efforts. And it is that progress - slow and infinitesimal though it might be - and effort that you should see as praiseworthy.

Your focus on his 'absolute standard' is really unhelpful to his educational development here. In all aspects of life, there are things that we are less good at than others. instilling at this stage that putting effort in to get even slightly better is the way to go, rather than saying 'Well, i'll never be any good so I won't try and will give up' is vital for life success.

Ooh yes oddity good point! An education is worthwhile in itself. It makes me sad when people think it's all about getting a job :(

Architecture*

Ah right, you are taking the spoilt 'my clever darling must not be allowed to fail, so must not be exposed to subjects for which he has little talent' line.

Bugger all those lesser kids whose lack of talent lies with maths and English, eh?

You're doing him no favours. Learning to handle poor performance and to improve it, even slightly, is a valuable experience.

I really think you need to change your attitude, encourage him, find the positives, help him improve but also to understand that he, like everyone, had limits. Finding your limits is incredibly valuable and helps DC channel their efforts productively and realistically, in future.