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?

At my ds's school (primary), all the junior classes learn an instrument as a whole class. Ds hates it. I think it is brilliant. No, he never practices, and he would drop it in a second if given the option. But he has learned to read music, learned about rhythm, practised fine motor control and coordination, and performed with his class. All this seems very worthwhile to me.

I love Ken Robinson and I'm really happy someone posted the TED talk further up. It's the most watched TED talk ever with roughly a trillion views and well worth the 20minutes to watch it I do believe that government priorities and demands forces schools into a system where creative subjects are downgraded and valued less than other subjects - although I think the standard of teaching has improved from when I was a school. Creative thinking is not a skill that only applies to "creative" subjects and can enhance learning across the board. ps I've never heard KR talking about selling his house so I have no idea where that comes from.

Oops. Missed a full stop. Fat fingers!

The conservative government wants state school arts downgraded and a very restricted teaching to the test curriculum so the pupils are bored silly so they get low exam results in order to complete the take over of top jobs by the private educated. Then everyone will desert the state sector and be forced to privately educate their children. This will mean a smaller government and lower taxes (instead we will be paying private education and for higher crime and a smaller talent pool).

I was an academic child who was literally the worst in the class at PE and art due to a minor physical disability. It didn't actually teach me a growth mindset (I wish it had!) but that there were things I was naturally good at, and things I was bad at regardless of whether I tried hard or not. I was pleased for the other girls who weren't so good at academic subjects but shone at sport or art, but that didn't stop me feeling embarrassed about being the worst all the time. Yes, I probably have more empathy because of it, but overall it isn't the sort of experience I'd want another child to have.

I had to do art until the end of year 9 and PE until year 11 and I think that was too long, especially with the way they were taught. Physical activity is important, competitive sport less so, and I'd have rather have learnt more about famous artists or art history than the incessant 'projects' which were supposed to encourage creativity but didn't provide any guidance on drawing technique or how to improve!

I think the 'creative' subjects (and I use that word cautiously - I always thought of myself as creative as a child since I enjoyed creative writing) should be optional at secondary school, or else they should be set by ability in the same way that maths is. The high-achievers would have the pride of being in the top group for the things they excel at, and the tone-deaf and those of us who can barely draw stick men could have had more encouragement, more involved teaching and progressed at a slower pace.

It's all very well saying teenagers should have access to all these things, but if the result is that the less talented decide that they hate art/music/drama and want nothing to do with it as soon as they can drop it, it's not a creative or relaxed alternative to pressurised academic subjects for them at all. The curriculum/teaching needs an overhaul, I think.

Most subjects are talent subjects to some extent. If like me you have zero spatial awareness you are always going to struggle with geometry. If you have dyslexia, learning foreign languages will be harder. If you are dyspraxic, like ds, science and Tech subjects are going to be harder. Personally, I think it is good to learn how you handle something that is naturally difficult for you.

Agree with above, a little streaming at secondary would be a good idea for the arts - those who enjoy and are good at it, versus those who may or may not enjoy it but have no aptitude. The latter group should still do the subjects until it comes to choosing GSCE subjects, but their practical work should be less complicated and the lessons more towards appreciating and understanding rather than doing, whereas the "keen set" would do a mix of appreciation and creativity.
I wouldn't lump drama the same - you don't have to have a particular talent in the same way as art or music, and it is good for teaching speaking skills and confidence.
As much emphasis on fitness as competition in sport would be good. I hated PE with a vengeance - I could never hit/catch the ball (probably due to dodgy eyesight) and I was not fast. But once we had a supply teacher, who did aerobics occasionally instead of hockey/netball. I loved it - I wasn't competing against anyone other than myself. I could fully enjoy the lesson without being laughed at or shouted at for letting the team down. Sadly that lasted about 6 weeks before she left.
Foreign languages - almost all local schools have these as compulsory GCSE subjects. So basically DD2 will fail one subject. I'm glad that she has had the lessons in French and Spanish, but she can barely spell in English let alone another language, and just can't understand the pronunciation. She has no hope of reaching GCSE level. DH was the same, basically he ended up having to to CSE French rather than O level and still failed.

think the 'creative' subjects (and I use that word cautiously - I always thought of myself as creative as a child since I enjoyed creative writing) should be optional at secondary school, or else they should be set by ability in the same way that maths is.

That would be brilliant. But I don't know of any school which does this although streaming for everything else is commonplace.

Well if his marks for effort and attitude are excellent then there's no problem.

It's character building for him not always to be top of the class.

The experience will serve him well in the future.

PE has changed drastically at school Housemum . My dcs were allowed to chose a pathway which included dance and golf from yr 7 or 8. Once they reached yr 9 they were allowed to use the gym in the attached sports centre for PE.

DD (12), Yr 7, came home with a school report at Christmas with her lowest achievement grades being for Art and Drama.. It came as no shock that they were also the lowest effort grade (2, rather than the 1 for every other subject). We had a chat about it and her attitude was "it doesn't matter, it's only Art and Drama, I will be dropping those as soon as I can"..

I was upset with her attitude but then realised that her attitude came from me. I gave her the impression that Art and Drama don't matter but making her prioritise her homework, putting those subject at the bottom..

I didn't mean to do this, I just always said that English. Maths. Science were more important and to get those done first.

We had a chat about how I hadn't meant that Art and Drama weren't useful and fun to do. And that even though she didn't enjoy them as much as PE, Maths and Science , she should still be getting the same effort grade as her other subjects.

Roll on 6 months and she has brought home her full end of year report which shows that she got 1 in every subject for effort and organisation etc... Not surprisingly, the achievement grade had also been raised for both Art and Drama to a Hgher than expected level.

She has enjoyed Art so much more this term and I'm sure tht is because she put more effort into it.

My point is that I was giving her the message that they weren't important subjects, which was totally unintentional. I wouldn't be surprised if other parents did this too..

My DD is never going to take Art or Drama at A level, I doubt if she will opt to take them at GCSE but she can still enjoy them and learn from them until such time.

Also, most jobs have an aspect you're less good at/have to work harder at/dislike - and the more senior you are in many careers the more true this is. So teaching perseverence and ways to approach a less enjoyable/natural skill is hugely valuable. I find risk management really dull btw, but credit having to do CDT until I was 16 with teaching me to get my head down and do my best - I got a c, I got a's generally, and was always going to be a desk dweller, but the world doesn't provide many of us with perfectly suited jobs.

I wonder if the OP meant to post this in the " I am not being unreasonable" topic.

The vast majority of learning an instrument, for example, is practice and an understanding of the "rules".

And having a sense of rhythm. And timing. And no nerves. I did a group dance once where i kept moving late. Every time. Everyone else could dance to the music. I was trying, I really was, I just didn't know when to move. Hoped no one noticed. Died of embarrassment when I saw the video. Can't believe the other teenagers were so gracious as to say nothing horrible.

Later I did folk dancing for years... someone said I was a great dancer as long as the tune was a military march.

Or the time a boyfriend & BF's mate said do you want to jam with us. Within a minute the mate stopped to exclaim "Did you say you had 2 yrs of lessons? Then why do you have such an APPALLING sense of rhythm?!" He was really furious.

I'm like top 1% for math, though. Why isn't everyone?

Despite almost 100% yabu the op is still refusing to concede any of us just might have a point and continues to try and justify her stance. I don't know why some people bother posting here if they're so determined not to take other viewpoints on board.

encouraging a growth mindset, not "yeah you're rubbish at that, give up".
Not at all - but you play to your strengths and concentrate on what you're good at
That is EXACTLY what you are saying - concentrate on what you are good at, give up what you aren't good at.
Teaches nothing about resilience or having a go. There is SO much more to Music and Art than you have described.

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.
It's even more important in those circumstances that the student has to do things that they are not good at. If you put the effort in you could have got better at drawing an apple. It may not have ever looked like a masterpiece, but you could have improved. By learning that you can get better at things you find hard, you develop the skills you will need when you are older and maintaining that straight A standard becomes more difficult.

This is an interesting short article. Lots of it applies to all the creative subjects taught in schools. There are loads of case studies which identify that children who've participated in creative subjects achieve, eg better results, higher income, lower incidence of depression, etc.

it isn't just the teaching either. sometimes when the school is restricted in what it can offer a teacher can spot talent and point the parents in the right direction.

We didn't need school to tell us of dd musical talent, but that was because we are a musical family. It didn't stop them though, they really encouraged her and made her feel less of a weirdo/ freak as she described herself back then.

They normalised her gift, which enabled her to be confident to work hard and gain her place at specialist music school.
they encouraged the school to support differences in abilities in all subjects.
They did nothing for her musically as they couldn't but the support was enough.

I have been an Art/dt teacher for about 20 years. I worked in design for 9 years, following a design degree.

Art can be taught, just like any other subject. It is how it is taught that can be a problem, ie telling someone to paint a picture from imagination without learning the basic skills.

I've had many a kid say to me" I thought I was rubbish at drawing until I came here"

Not sure who would design the clothes your wearing, the furniture your sitting on, the car you drive, the computer game your ds might play on, the ipad without some artistic education.

I also firmly believe that by the time children hit secondary age in Scotland (11.5 as a minimum), that they will be well aware of whether they have artistic or musical potential or not.

As a TA in a Scottish secondary school, I can tell you that for many children the only time they ever get to experience any form of creative art is at school and some of these children won't be in school for much of the time. There could be potential Mozarts out there who would never have the chance to explore their talents if schools didn't have arts as compulsory subjects. Drama particularly can gather in and nurture children who don't have other routes of self-expression in their lives. Art is very subjective and with good teaching, all children can produce something better than they would have anticipated. It's great for self-esteem.

On a more personal level, I'm very glad my DC had the opportunity to learn about music, art and drama. They're both well-rounded people who have a decent amount of general knowledge.

OP - I find your comments very upsetting on two levels.

One as a music teacher, and two as a parent of a child who hates school and often refuses to go.

I have been teaching dc musical instruments for 28 years. Some dc find it very difficult at first to control their voice. But with practise, they get better. If your dc really cannot tell the difference between a tuba and a violin, then there may well be a medical reason lurking there. It is visually like not being able to differentiate between a picture of an ant and an elephant. There may be some vibrations that your dc is not hearing, and some sort of hearing aid or procedure could correct this and open up a whole new world to him.
Secondly, if dc are allowed to give up what they have no interest in, then surely you can see the fault in that train of thought. As I said above, my dd has no interest in ANY subject other than drama and music, but as parents, we have to persuade her that education is important and she has to try. Expressive arts are very important to creating a well rounded individual, so your dc must be encouraged to see the importance of these subjects. Your dc CAN play the piano. If he can count up to 8, then he can play a scale. If he can play a scale, he can de-construct that scale in to melody. If he has 2 hands, he can play two notes at the same time.

The naturally talented dc will continue these subjects beyond the other dc. That already happens.

I really am very saddened by your post. I hope it is a wind up.

I fully believe that these subjects can be taught in the same way as purely academic subjects unless a child has a disability that means they csnt do well.

Eg my ds has poor fine motor skills & hyoermibility so is rubbish at art - but he also struggles to write legibly & draw science/geography diagrams or use compasses in maths.

He is however learning the guitar & is excelling at music - they do a lot of music theory & learning about a composer/styles in year 7. The daily guitar practice is helping his con ordination. Practising singing & aural excercises helps develop his ear.

Dd too has problems with art, she struggles to hold a pen as well but she excels in dance - mostly down to determination & work. Both children are desperate to drop art but both would agree it should be tsught in the early years of secondary. And drama has kept ds in school during a difficult time.

I like ds's schools approach though. They do all the subjects in year 7 & 8 but for year 9 they can opt to take a second language language or drop Latin. Depending on their choices they then choose 1, 2 or 3 creative subjects from a list including art, textiles, DT, home ec, music or ceramics. Before choosing GCSE options at the end of year 9.

Couldn't disagree more. I could never draw and therefore never considered myself "arty" as a child but when I got to secondary school I learnt that there's much more to art than drawing and became very interested in art and art history. Got an A at GCSE and a B at A Level and loved it. If you'd asked me at 11 if I wanted to carry on art or was I good at it, I would have 100% said no but it became a subject I really loved.

My ds's school uses Maths sets to set for music, so there is a hugely gifted musician in set 4 because he is not so hot at maths!!!! Be careful what you wish for!!!

Because of time tabling dds school has to have students in the same art & music sets. So dd has ended up in top set art!