To think music exams in schools are unfair?

[FleurDelacoeur]

Discussion over dinner last night about which subjects DD might consider taking to exam level. Her first comment was "well, I'm definitely dropping Music". We asked why. She said it's because that to do well in music exams at school you need to be doing music out of school too, which she's not. All the kids doing well at school music are the ones who have been doing violin since 7, or piano since 5. We are not a musical family, DD (or the other kids) haven't really expressed an interest in music, and she wasn't selected to learn an instrument at Primary - not open to all, they were "tested" and unsurprisingly the ones who were already playing piano or something did better than total novices.

DD feels it's unfair as it's the only school subject where you need to be doing it outside school to excel. Even similar subjects like drama or art - it's possible to never pick up a pencil or a script before arriving at senior school and still do well enough to pass exams and pass them well.

But if you've never been taught to read music or play an instrument there is no way you're going to get to the exam standard in a few years just working in school. I am assuming secondary schools don't have flutes, violins and pianos to lend to students who are interested in music but haven't the equipment at home or funds to buy one.

I know at Nat 5 level in Scotland there's more about styles of music, listening and identifying instruments and that sort of thing which is accessible to all. But progress to Higher standard and it's all about performance and composition. Also I would imagine that there are a lot of people taking Higher Music as one of their 5 Highers who are not going into music as a career.

Not sure how you resolve this but it just seems intrinsically unfair.

But surely if you were really interested then you would want to do it outside of school as well.

Many schools do schemes where they rent out instruments.

Somethings just are intrinisically unfair, and thats how it is.

There's composition now at music Nat5 . There's also performance.

She could do music technology perhaps?

Nonsense. My dc doesn't and hasn't ever done music outside school and is predicted a 6/7 for gcse.

Such is life. It's the same for sporty people - I wasn't from a sporty family so never went to sports clubs and so couldn't do PE to a high level.

I had a friend at school from a non musical family, picked up the cello in y7, only had lessons in school, ended up taking music at one of the London music schools and is now a highly respected music teacher.

surely if you were really interested then you would want to do it outside of school as well.

But that's my point - you can do really well at Maths, Physics, Drama, Geography etc without having to "do it" outside of school.

It's kind of like saying that they're going to introduce dressage exams because they think dressage is really important. But you've no chance of passing, unless you've been riding since you were a tot, and have a horse at home.

And you can do music technology at Nat5. There's a decent amount of information online about it. Sounds like an interesting subject.

But many of the mathematicians will do something in their spare time like own a raspberry pi or have a strong interest in computing or the physicists may love astronomy... you really can take any subject and extend it at home

My dd got a sudden interest in music in year 9 as she really likes her music teacher. She has since started playing guitar which she is teaching herself using YouTube. She is doing really well at it and her teacher says this is fine for GCSE. I think he is maybe a slightly unusual music teacher in that he really encourages children who don't already play an instrument to get involved and take GCSE music. He has children using computers to make music and all sorts.

Of course you can take any subject and extend it at home, and most kids do. But you don't HAVE to be able to extend it at home to excel at school if it's Maths or Geography. And it's fairly impossible to extend Music at home if you haven't access to whatever instrument you want to learn or be examined on.

Your child has a voice yes?

she wasn't selected to learn an instrument at Primary - not open to all, they were "tested" and unsurprisingly the ones who were already playing piano or something did better than total novices.

That's appalling. Music should be open to everyone, especially where it's state funded!

When I was growing up the county music department had instruments you could borrow if you were having (paid for but much cheaper than private) lessons. They were rubbish and if you wanted to take it seriously you'd really need to buy your own after a few years, but at least it started you off. Given council budget cuts since then I don't know if that's still available but it ought to be.

But learning shouldn’t be just about learning in school and yes, if you put in more time at something, you will be better at it. That applies to maths, physics, art and drama too. It is unfair in that some children have more opportunities than others, but that’s the case in many many ways.

Performance for nat 5 music I think makes up 50% of the mark, composition 15% and listening 25%. The standard required for nat 5 performance is grade 3, schools can and do get pupils to this level even if they don’t take study outside school. At our local high school they could do keyboard, guitar, percussion, singing. All learned in the time allocated to nat 5 music.

For pupils that take music outside schools and started at a young age the level of the sqa exams for s4/s5/s6 are too low. The exams are geared for students that learn in school

Some schools will allow a pupil to bring an instrument home. For example, pitched percussion, which you can be examined in at Nat5.

So are you suggesting that music shouldn't be offered as a GCSE subject at school? I don't really understand what you're getting at.

Music is a skill which improves with practice so of course children who have done it in some form out of school for years will do better. Like children who have focussed on French outside of school will do better at French. It's kind of normal.

But if you want to study, say English lit, you've been doing the foundations of that since you start education. You'd be unlikely to study literature before degree level if it wasn't in your first language. If you study, say, Spanish, you'll generally do better if you're immersed in the language when travelling. Why would it be different with music?

What you have beautifully illustrated though, is the massive inequality in education. If your parents can afford to independently enrich your studies, you have an advantage...

Do you include individual music lessons by peripatetic teachers in school as 'learning in school'. Because, if so, then you certainly don't have to 'do' music outside of school as well to be able to handle GCSE.

When I did GCSE, you could take the practical part of the exam at Grade 1 or 2 standard, if you performed the piece well. Individual instrumental lessons in school were free to those taking GCSE (that may also have been cut now, idk) so you could easily get to the required standard in time, even if you couldn't afford lessons.

I don't think it's a reason to cut GCSE music regardless. Not all subjects are equally achievable for all children for many reasons - and there's no way of remedying that.

As I understand it the performance / playing requirement of the GCSE is equivalent to grade 2. Pretty basic and within the reach of two year’s study in school. In my Dc’s Comp GCSE music students get free 121 music tuition in school and can borrow an instrument if needed. Requiring them to practise at home is the same as homework.

But the students who are exceptional at English literature tend to be the book worms who live their lives with their noses in books. Should we ban that and level the playing field there too?

I'm not sure what I'm getting at either!

Perhaps a different style of learning Music which doesn't put children from homes where music isn't a "thing" at a disadvantage? I'm sure there are kids doing music in schools who haven't done it before. But I can only go on what I see from my own kids, and children doing music exams are the ones who have been actively involved in music outside school from a very young age.

Stopping music totally is probably a step too far - I'm all for offering a wide range of classes. I'm sure they could come up with lots of activities and other things which are not purely reading music / playing music.

Everyone has a voice. If you genuinely cannot afford an instrument get them singing.

But you don't HAVE to be able to extend it at home to excel at school if it's Maths or Geography. And it's fairly impossible to extend Music at home if you haven't access to whatever instrument you want to learn or be examined on

And how do you suggest that changes? Or that its any different really to having access to books for English?

I have a Higher in music. I still cannot read music.