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?

Obviously, we all want to protect our children from 'failing', from 'doing badly', and as the parent of an able child it's not nice to see them failing at something and we aren't necessarily very good at it. Other parents, whose children struggle at everything, may in fact be much better in this scenario - so it is an aspect of parenting that you may have to learn, as I did tbh.

It's even more horrible not being a straight A student

Why mark the arts only for effort rather than achievement? Why not extend that to english and maths?

For some children, the arts are the only subjects they excel in. Very few children are good at everything.

Some of you have zero empathy

It is OK for them not to be good at something though he doesn't have to get high marks at every subject disappointment isn't negative he's only got a week or so left of second. Year anyway

Apologies if I wasn't clear, Lynda. All subjects at my DCs' school are marked for effort and attainment. The effort marks are the ones e.g. displayed in the classroom, those who get the highest effort marks overall are rewarded etc etc. Equally art home we praise effort rather than attainment.

At my own primary, we mark virtually all subjects on effort alone.

FantasticButtocks

Love Ken Robinson- I have seen quite a few TED talks and quite frankly they break my heart.

So far removed from the Education our children receive- those TED talks are regularly trotted out at staff meetings and courses I have been on- educators value what they are saying but we are still chaining 5 year olds to desks and telling them there isn't time to sing a song, or draw a picture because they have to pass a test.

And to the op- there are so so so many skills that taking part in Arts lessons teach and those skills feed into and enhance many other areas of learning. It's not a matter of talent it's a matter of giving children the opportunities to broaden their experiences.

My school report also had two marks for all the subjects Lynda, the first (and presumably the most important) was always for effort :)

Growth mindset is about effort. You're doing your son no favours by encouraging him to only work hard at what he's "good" at and ignore what he isn't. This is why so called straight A students flounder the minute they encounter a concept they don't. "get" right away.
Parents like you make it very difficult for Scottish schools to implement curriculum for excellence, you're fixed mindset is holding him back.

You do need talent to progress in Music and Art though

You need talent to progress in anything.

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

I have very little sympathy TBH. Imagine getting As in art/music/drama and D or E in maths, English and everything else.

If you are no good at the arty things, people just think you're no good at the arty things.
If you are no good at maths or English people think you are thick.

I'm a scientist and I disagree. Art and Music have a theoretical side (that's how I passed O level music); equally maths and science require some aptitude for their concept, or numeracy, and can not be entirely taught. A good education IMO should allow exposure to, and experience of, a broad range of subjects.

He's had 7 years of "introduction" at Primary School.

Interestingly, DS1 was shit not very talented at primary school art. He got an A at GCSE.

So his school report effectively said that he wasn't doing very well in these subjects due to lack of talent (and poor attitude?) and your response is that he should be allowed to drop the subjects?

Your response should be either:

Never mind darling O know they aren't your best subjects but you tried your hardest and that's important. You've learned to appreciate the hard work that artists and musicians do.

OR

I don't care if you don't like the subjects, and aren't good at them, I expect you to put in 100% and an excellent attitude just as with your other classes.

Anything else and you are teaching him:
*Anything you aren't good at you can give up
*Anything you aren't good at isn't important
*Academic subjects are the only ones that matter.

I think it's good for a child - particularly one who is academic and doing well in other subjects -to have at least one subject they find difficult. It gives them a better understanding of how some of their fellow pupils must feel in English, Maths, French etc. So hopefully they become a bit more empathetic to those who struggle.

Plus it's good to learn about failure and how to improve. Some children coast through school academically but eventually even bright children reach a point where effort is needed as well as natural ability. Some really struggle with this. They think if they can't grasp something immediately then they are no good. They become so afraid of failure that they give up.

Our children need to learn how to stick at something. It's a terrible lesson to teach someone that it's OK - if you don't like something or find it hard, then just give up!

Agree that 100 mins of compulsory music lessons a week is a lot for secondary.

So much depends on how it's taught. My art lessons at secondary school were miserable as I had zero natural ability and zero visual creativity. If we had been taught some basic drawing techniques and a potted history of global art rather than just being given some materials and being instructed to be 'creative' it would have been much more interesting and useful. Instead the experience put me off anything badged as creative for years as I was convinced I couldn't do it.

teacher - sorry, my post wasn't directed at you! It was directed at tiny who said: "The arts are important but there needs to be less emphasis on ability and more on effort when it comes to grades."

As you rightly point out, all subjects should be marked for effort and attainment. And effort is what should be celebrated.

And yes, absolutely agree with soupy that if you're no good at academic subjects, people think you're thick whereas there's no stigma in being crap at art.

I am rubbish at art and cannot draw anything, however my art teacher tried to.persuade me to take GSCE art, I presume because as a hardworking student I still would have achieved well enough on the theory of art and by following instructions to achieve certain techniques. My daughter has zero natural ability in maths but obviously still has to do it.

You say it's hard for your son to struggle through art/music every week when he's not good at either and doesn't get good grades.

What about the kids who struggle in the same way with maths/english/science? They get much more than 100 minutes a week on those subjects and have to study them through to GCSE and get a decent grade in them in order to do anything decent with their lives.

So, in the grand scheme of things, why does it matter that your son might get a D grade in music in year 9? It won't make the blindest bit of difference to his future. Kids who get D's in maths and English at GCSE will really struggle in the future.

Be grateful your son's talents lie in areas that will make his life ten times easier in the future!

I hope OP is reflecting on all this excellent input

Art and music will be the most important lessons for your ds because in those lessons he will learn to persevere. If you let him learn that lesson.

Up to yr6 dd showed no interest in drama and actively avoided all speaking parts. Suddenly she has grown in confidence, auditioned and got a big role in a production. In your scheme she could have dropped drama for ever in just a few months and missed out on a potential hobby/ career (think will just be a hobby but we are not to know now).

Anyway you are clearly not listening like many AIBUs:
OP: AIBU?
MN - 97% say 'yes you are BU'
OP: 'look 3% agree with me so I am not being unreasonable'

YABVU. Of course artistic talent isn't more innate than any other skill set. Would you let people off sport and pE is they have short fat legs? Would you let people off literacy if they have dyslexia? Or science if their brain freezes like a computer as soon as Physics equations go beyond the very basic?

A curriculum is broad partly because pupils learn a lot of secondary skills from subjects they have no natural ability at, such as self discipline, application, resilience, humility and respect for others.

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

You may never be Picasso or Pavarotti, but that doesn't mean you can't improve your singing/music/drawing with effort and good teaching.

Kids aren't going to leave school being Einstein or Hawking either, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do science.

It's about putting in the effort, and producing work to the best of your ability, even if that ability is low. My son has no natural aptitude for art, he tried to draw an eye for homework in 5 minutes, and then moaned he was no good at art. But when I sent him off to spend 40 minutes on it, by using the techniques he had been taught at school, he was able to draw a passable sketch of an eye.

In life we have to learn to do things we don't like! Another year of these subjects may seem like hard work to you but it's a good learning skill.

Ds has just moved into S3 and has taken art. He's not got outstanding talent but he has learned to enjoy the subject and that is why he is continuing. The drama and music teachers said he tried his hardest despite clearly being out with his comfort zone and that was all they asked for.

Totally agree with shouldwestay, but that's entirely reflective of fixed mindset, the op thinks she's right and no amount of reasoned argument will change her view.

Working in a school I see this every day. Pupils who find most academic subjects "easy" put zero effort into their work and become mulish and stubborn when they find something "hard". We have much more success with our less able. "give it a go" types who often end up surpassing the "clever" kids.

It's really good for kids to struggle in some classes and learn how to study and learn empathy for the kids who struggle in other classes.

All schools should be like that teachers, grade all subjects on both effort and attainment. My experience of art at school was the same at Irene's where you were expected to be creative and draw still life and it was miserable, I'm not good at that so my grades never improved no matter how hard I tried. It would have been much less miserable if I was also graded for effort so say a 2 for effort but a d for ability, at least with that system the fact that you're at least trying is acknowledged.

I'm not saying those that aren't good at art etc should be able to drop them, they are important subjects. What I'm saying is that there's a whole other side to them, such as history of art or using drama to help public speaking, that should be part of the lessons as well as drawing and playing instruments.

Imo it's doing a disservice to those that excell at art/music/drama by saying that anyone can be taught to be good at art/taught to sing.

OP, you need talent to make a career of music. However, almost anyone can become a competent musician, with practice. I do think you've passed on your attitudes (which are wrong). Please re-think. It will do him good to have to make a real effort, and achieve something he thought he couldn't.