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.

(So YABVVVVVVVVU)

As you've said, it's the only one that requires work outside of school over several years.

So she's got about 20+ other options. Leave music for the musical kids.

OP I think you're wrong. A child with an interest will 'do it out of school', it's practice. My DD has a 20 minute lesson once a week, she plays every day in a rented instrument.

Don't get me started! I get this all the time now. My children are talented musicians/singers. Apparently i is unfair that they indulge their hobby out of school and have extra practise. Apparently they are "cheating" by having music lessons.

Just been talking about this on another thread.

DD feels it's unfair as it's the only school subject where you need to be doing it outside school to excel.

My DCs also speak two languages due to family circumstances. I have been told this is "unfair" also lol!

And many of these kids at that level will have been balancing other hobbies and school work and social lives etc. If your child wants to take music and you can afford the lessons then don't stop her due to some weird prejudice you have about it.

My eldest DD had a gift from music from god knows where - certainly not us. From experience , to do well at GCSE and A level, the child does need to do more outside school - ensembles, youth orchestras, music groups.etc, even Junior College at music colleges . These were mostly inexpensive, supported by local council or bursary aided for junior college. Took parental effort to take them there and a genuine love of music for the child. Orchestras want talent, from whatever source, and there willl be all kinds of support available to the truly talented and motivated but it also does take practice, application and effort.

It's not a cost issue for our family. Not at all. I'm sure it is a cost issue for a lot of people though and £70 per term is a lot to many families.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Perhaps in secondary schools they could separate out the kids who are already at a higher standard in music than the ones who have no idea. Streamed classes.

Be "aghast" at our lack of music if you like Flibberty - it's just not something which is important to any of us at all. No interest in it or learning to do it.

My DD nagged until I bought her a 2nd hand guitar and amp when she was 13, because she thought she could be Slash. She found it was too hard on her fingers, so she nagged until I brought back the electric and got her an acoustic with nylon strings instead. But the point is...she nagged. She listened to music and had favourite musicians and wanted to be like them. The OP is basically complaining because her DD is complaining that none of the family were ever interested in music but now she'd like to miraculously be good at it. That just isn't how it works IMV.

Don’t you think that to excel in maths you need to spend time at home doing your homework and revision? Don’t you think that to excel in computer science you need to spend time at home on the computer?

I have a Y13 spending most of his time doing this, along with physics, to get top marks in his A levels and get into the University he wants. To be good at anything you need to practise at home!

DD feels it's unfair as it's the only school subject where you need to be doing it outside school to excel

How are you going to excel in music if you don't play an f*ing instrument?

As you've said, she couldn't be bothered to learn when she was younger.

What wouldn't be fair is removing the performance aspect, and thus depriving children who spent years practising the violin or the clarinet their chance to excel.

Not everything is for everybody. This isn't for her. She needs to grow up and get used to the real world.

£70 a term over 12 weeks is a bloody bargain! Do you have any idea how much private lessons cost with a good teacher? Half an hour can be upwards of £16 a lesson. Prohibitively expensive for many which is why in school lessons are subsidised.

it's just not something which is important to any of us at all. No interest in it or learning to do it.

But that's why your DD doesn't play an instrument to the required level, not some massive injustice. I also have no idea why she cares that she can't do Music GCSE. It's not like it conveys and special privileges, especially not to those who have no interest in Music

And music is a streamed subject in many schools for that exact reason!!

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.

Not true and that's why these subjects are taught in primary school as music is. Children draw on a regular basis through many subjects.

The problem is the small amount of time given to 'inferior' subjects in school, that's why you have to do it out of school. Doing a music lesson once a week just isn't enough, maths lessons are nearly every day. It's just the way mainstream education is.

I haven't RTFT and this was back in the 90s, but when I did GCSE music you didn't need to be able to play an instrument to do it. The teacher was very clear on this. But you was expected to be able to learn the basics of the keyboard and chords over the 2 years for the performance part of the course and be willing to sing for the theory. I would have thought this would be easier nowadays with youtube tutorials etc. Has the course got harder?

PE gcse is similar, in that you really need to be doing one of your sports at an outside club.

I went to school in Scotland and did standard grade and higher music. My choices for standard grade were voice (because I can fortunately hold a tune) and xylophone, despite having never picked up a beater before. I managed to become decent enough to pass, but it meant having to spend my lunchtimes practising.

I have a musical ear and have always been interested in it. I remember the primary school aptitude test had passed it, being offered the chance to learn violin while other classmates were stuck with recorders.

On the other hand, I am hopeless at anything remotely scientific and am not athletic in the slightest. It would not have occurred to me to try and take these subjects at exam level because I have no interest or talent for them. You can't be good at everything.

For those suggesting music technology, this (strange as it may sound) really is a completely different subject to music.

What an entitled way to view schooling and ability. How would you suggest children become good at playing instruments then OP? Do you think that the exam board should just lower standards so that kids who have little musical skill can pass too? You’re either good at playing instruments or you’re not and practice is normally involved.

Don’t get me started on your attitude towards art and drama. Actually, you can’t just pick up a pencil and pass an exam in art. Just like you can’t just pick up an instrument and pass an exam. It requires practice, talent and creativity. Correct, assessing these subjects is nothing like assessing Geography or History, for very obvious reasons. Some kids aren’t great at academia but are great at the creative subjects and vice versa (some are good across the board). Just because your child can’t be great at everything doesn’t mean that the system is wrong, it caters to different types of students!

Onpinions like these are the reason why the arts are severely neglected subjects in schools.

The recorder is a beautiful instrument when played well. YouTube is full of examples. Unfortunately I think most people's experience of it is hearing 'Twinkle Twinkle' played very badly by children.

Not true at all. The instrument I used for gcse music I took up at the beginning of year 10, had weekly lessons at school. I got an a*.

Recorder players have been in the final of young musician of the year and sound beautiful. It's not a joke instrument.

I sympathise if she wasn’t selected for peripatetic lessons but what council are you in? Some councils allow you to reapply every year. But honestly it’s not closed off for her if she’s interested. The performance standard for nat 5 is not high and could easily be attained be someone committed in a short time frame. Music notation is also not an issue, I’m pretty certain you could pass the listening exam without it. In Scotland you will find that many have been learning through trad methods which uses aural methods rather than written music and will also be having to learn notation.

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.

I should complain that I wouldn't do as well at Photography A Level because I didn't have a hobby in it, or drama because I wasn't actually that dramatic, or sport because I had no interest in team sports in or out of school.

Some more practical subjects are closely linked to hobbies.

How silly is it to say 'it's not fair that people who do well in music are musical'? If you wanted to give your child musical foundations then there's loads of free or low cost musical opportunities for children of all ages and often instrument lessons via music services can be subsidised for lower income families. It's hardly school's fault that as a teenager ypur child hasn't had those opportunities.

Actually, you can’t just pick up a pencil and pass an exam in art. Just like you can’t just pick up an instrument and pass an exam. It requires practice, talent and creativity.

THANK YOU!! Actually quite fuming at that comment. Sorry but have some respect for people who put in the effort to attain these creative skills. If you saw how much work and time (personal time) goes into art gcse I think you'd be surprised.

As you said - you could afford it. She's only been put at a 'disadvantage' by her own and your own lack of interest. So like any other subject really! Is it a disadvantage to not be good at an optional subject you have no interest in??

If you are looking for a solution, it can't be dumbing the subject down for everyone. It would be parents forcing children to have music lessons privately when they aren't interested (lots do! I'm a piano teacher -sob) simply because they know it's potentially useful and good for brain development. You could have done this, but you didn't. Nothing unfair about your situation.