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.

Grade 2 standard for GCSE on an instrument? I think it is Grade 5

music lessons by peripatetic teachers in school

We still have these in Scotland but they are not open to all. Children are tested and the "best" are offered a chance to learn an instrument. Usually about 10% of the year. And it's not free - a friend's child had the opportunity to do violin, but it was about £70 a term and she had to pay a hefty deposit for the violin itself.

The only whole class music done in Primary is singing and recorder.

Having looked at gcse results, lots of language subjects have huge amounts of students (say 30%) getting a* due to, one imagines, that being their mother tongue. Should they be stopped from entering?
As long as someone who just does the 2 years work can get an a, it's probably fine. Ie they are not disadvantaged due to many others being very good already.

But children are always influenced by their home environment. Children who grow up in homes full of books with parents who read lots tend to read more. Children who grow up in families where science is talked about and the parents work in that field often do better at sciences. Instead of looking at what your child hasn't got I'd focus on what she is interested in and can do.

OP -

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.
So what kind of other things?
For GCSE PE children have to have 3 sports to a good level. Usually these will have been done out of school since the child was younger. Do you not like this either?

In our case we could have afforded music lessons if anyone had expressed an interest. Nobody did. Which is fine, but on on the other hand DD next year will be doing 100 minutes of music a week with people who are accomplished pianists or violinists and who can read music. Half the class can't. Yes it's very unequal, I'm not a fan at all of making everything equal and playing to the lowest common denominator. No idea how you "fix" it.

Ask your Dd if she is interested in music and/ or in doing music at GCSE and assure her that you completely support her doing this if she wants to and that you will find ways and means of helping her make it happen.

About the GCSE - go and see the music teacher together. The teacher can't read your dd's mind but may well be able to encourage her.

Are things very tight financially? At this age I refused a lot of enrichment opportunities because I knew my parents were terrifyingly broke (my dad went bankrupt when I was 16). In fact my mum was the most inventive and indefatigable person and would have made things happen for us somehow. I did do piano lessons.

Get in touch with your county music service about cheap/free ways to borrow an instrument: join a church choir (a big one) - look for a traditional choir that actually reads music, or if it's an evangelical church talk to the band leader about ways of your dd getting involved. Just assure her that if she wants to do GCSE music it will be fine, and if she wants to extend her music there are always ways.

How can she have got several years into secondary school (and presumably had associated music lessons) and not grasp the basics of notation?

For those saying to the OP her DC have a voice, the OP is in Scotland. To progress through Scottish exams her DC need to perform on two instruments of which one can be voice, so schools must offer instruction in instruments otherwise pupils who have no access to instruments outside school cannot take music beyond national 4 which has is typically completed by the end of S3.

Lots of language subjects have huge amounts of students (say 30%) getting a due to, one imagines, that being their mother tongue. Should they be stopped from entering?

I did languages at Uni and there was a girl in my class who had grown up in the country concerned and was a native speaker, only moving to the UK when she was about 15. I didn't think it was unfair, but did wonder what the point was of taking a degree in a foreign language when you were a native speaker.

At degree level is it any different to you or me doing an English degree?

How can she have got several years into secondary school (and presumably had associated music lessons) and not grasp the basics of notation?

She has just finished her first year at secondary school and has just had her 13th birthday. That's one year. At primary school, unless you were one of the select few chosen to pay to learn violin, music was singing songs and banging a triangle. She gets 50 minutes once a week in S1, 50 minutes twice a week of music in S2.

Does she even want to do music? You said in your first post that you are not a musical family, and she has never expressed an interest. What is the issue?

Fair enough. I would hope by the end of the second year she can read music

I have 2 girls - both have done GCSE music - both got A* - one plays piano (was G5 standard at GCSE) and recorder to about G4, the other played nothing til Y10 - she sings - plenty of choirs about, and took up drums and recorder.

A love for music in many forms, and a joy in performing are all that is needed to do well.

She doesn't want or not want to do it - she knows it's totally closed off to her as even a possibility. So it doesn't really matter whether she wants to or not.

If she were desperate to do it, she'd have to learn a new instrument to whatever level within two years and to read music, along with juggling all the other schoolwork, assignments and other extra-curricular activities she's doing already.

Like most kids

...and?

GCSE music has a performance aspect.

You can sing though, so you don't have to play an instrument.

There's nothing stopping her from taking it if she's a confident singer (willing to sing in front of others).

YABU though to expect school to get a child to the required level to do music gcse. It involves learning to read music confidently, being exposed to music very frequently (for composition), preferably playing at least the piano, if not a second instrument. It also takes one to one attention, not a class of 30.

The school doesn't have enough hours in the day to devote that much time to music.

Music GCSE is for musical people.

They shouldn't have to dumb it down - making it less respected - just so that children who aren't musical can do it.

In our area primary children on FSM get free music lessons on an instrument of their choice, which is on loan (for free) from the county. Not sure if this continues into secondary, but I would imagine it does. So learning play an instrument is available to all. All other parents have the option to pay for music lessons in school via the county at a subsided rate (I think it was around £70 a term - so about a fiver a week?), and subsidised instrument hire. If parents or children choose not to take up the option of music lessons, then that's really their own choice.

So what do you want to happen?

Do you think they should remove the performance aspect so that kids who couldn't be bothered to learn an instrument can do it?

Music is about performance.

You wouldn't remove the performance part from Drama because 'some children can't act'.

Get her to your local orchestra or wind/brass band to try out different instruments. Am a bit aghast that you as a family don't have music, even the poorest ex mining communities have village bands. A pound a week subs.

No bumpowder that's the whole point - the children who have been learning violin or piano or whatever for years might already be at the required level for Nat 5 or GCSE or whatever or will be with a minimum amount of practice. No more time than would be devoted to any other subject.

If as previous posters are saying in Scotland you have to sing and play at least one instrument, that would mean learning something from scratch to the accepted level in 2 years. Obviously that takes a lot more time/effort than for someone who has many year's head start.

If she's not interested in music why does she want to take an exam in it...?

In our case we could have afforded music lessons if anyone had expressed an interest. Nobody did.

Coulda woulda shoulda

She wasn't interested.