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.

I don't understand your point really. How can you excel at music if you aren't learning music? This is why it isn't a compulsory GCSE like Maths because you can't just learn to play an instrument and read music in the time dedicated to it at school. It takes longer.

Skewed thinking.

I'm not sure that it's unfair. Exams aren't reserved for only those doing music outwith school so she's not being excluded from it. Obviously if a child has been doing music for years they will find it easier and many will sit the exam as an "easy" qualifications as they will be playing beyond the level required. But it is perfectly possible for children who have never done it to pass the exams, it's just not easy. Most subjects require homework and for any subject that your finding a bit more difficult you would have to put in extra effort to pass. Your daughter could pass music if she was prepared to put in a lot of effort.

Children who play musical instruments out of school have an advantage in music exams.

Children who go to Stagecoach/drama lessons out of school have an advantage in drama exams.

Children who go to sports clubs/sports lessons have an advantage in PE exams

Children who learn/speak/are exposed to a foreign language out of school have an advantage in MFL exams.

Children who go to book club/the library/come from a literary household have an advantage in English exams

Children who are motivated,work hard and do more than the bare minimum that is required of them in class achieve better than those only meet the minimum requirements.

Children who are naturally bright have an advantage over those who struggle to learn.

It's all just life.

You had the ability to send your DC to music lessons, and chose not to. Your DC had the opportunity to do music lessons but chose not to. That is nobody's responsibility but your own, and yes, it probably does mean that it's harder now (but absolutely not impossible if they have the aptitude and the determination) for them to excel in Music at this stage.

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

Totally disagree, for anyone to excel in any subject they need to put hours in outside of school as well.

Perhaps you and I have a different definition of excel though.

It's hard to see how you'd avoid the advantage of early music lessons, short of, well, not having any music content to GCSE?! DD has been doing music theory lessons from age 6, it unfortunately does follow that by GCSE she will be literally 10 years ahead of someone who only started learning about notation in GCSE lessons. It's not fair, but then school rarely is.

mrsm43s I agree with your sentiments, and for those who learn a musical instrument it can be something to enjoy throughout life. I have never had any use for the things I learnt in both my science exams, by contrast.

At our school you don't have to play an instrument to do music GCSE. You do, however, have to get to the equivalent of grade 5 music theory. You also have to perform something - you can sing. Non instrument players tend to go for percussion or take up drums. It doesn't have to be to a high level, just competently performed.

I think Music is probably the only subject like this to be honest . If someone is passionate they will surely do some extra curricular too ? Maybe it’s not the right one for her

OP, you and your Dd are being a bit ridiculous over this.

If she wants to do Music, sign her up, get her to do the school music lessons and get on with it. If she works at it she will do fine. The performance is only a small part of it anyway.

BUT she will have to actually practice. Not because she is at such an unfair disadvantage (oh woe!) not already being a child prodigy, but because music TAKES PRACTICE. For everyone.

(pupils on PP get music lessons paid for, generally...so another unfairness wiped out).

School drama students do do best if they join a youth theatre. And if they want to go to drama school why wouldn't they? Again, these things as skills take practice, work and passion. But it is possible to pass drama at school, just as it is possible for your Dd to pass music. IF she has any aptitude. Same as any other subject.

My family wasn’t at all musical. I decided I wanted to learn the flute, and scraped birthday and Christmas money together until I could buy a second hand one at 12. Begged for flute lessons at school. Later I had singing and piano lessons, after grovelling for a long time.

GCSE was fine, I got an A. A level was entirely different. Those who’d been studying music theory since early childhood just had an intrinsic understanding of things I didn’t.

Music is a skill that requires practice. . Maths and English does too. They are mostly practiced every day both at school and at home. Schools have only so much time and resource.

You could argue much the same for football, rugby cricket, languages (to some extent), horse riding etch etc.

I'm just re-reading and even more confused by what you find to be the unfair bit? She's not excluded from music at all. You could have sent her to lessons, you didn't. She wasn't interested and still isn't but somehow she should still be entitled to the qualification. Are you looking for the schools to change the exams so that someone with no prior interest can learn enough a few times a week without putting in any effort beyond that? How many hours and hours of practice do you think the kids who are already playing well have put in by the time they do the exams? I can tell you......hundreds. Why shouldn't they find it easier, they've put in the effort where your daughter hasn't. Music is a skill and needs practice, effort and an element of natural ability.

And the test they do in primary school is a very basic test. You don't have to be skilled at the point. Of course it makes sense to pick the kids with a greater natural ability

You seem to be determined to feel hard done by because your DD who comes from a family with no musical interests, who has no interest in learning music herself, who hasn't had any desire to take up music lessons which you say you could have paid for - can't do (according to you) music at GCSE because she won't have reached a sufficient standard! So rather than embrace the opportunity for your daughter to get a couple of years of basic music education, you are just whinging about how she can't take the subject for exams!

you can do really well at Maths, Physics, Drama, Geography etc without having to "do it" outside of school

No, not really. Some children have limited language skills because their parents don't teach them. Maths we use daily in shopping budgeting time etc all taught by parents. Geography and languages are learnt by being able to afford holidays and travel.

Some kids haven't been past the end of their road.

Some kids have French nannies for example so hear the language daily.

Same could be said of kids brought up in a farm and have a passion for animals.

We can't keep kids in boxes so there never will be a level playing field.

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? *

This is what I was about to say. In my hometown, there were a handful of language entries outside French/ German, entirely down to kids of ethnic background X doing language X, presumably as a means of bumping up their gcse score (even the ones who generally got Es/FsGs could generally manage a top grade here). Forget “greater opportunities to study” - these kids didn’t have to do any studying or active learning. Surely that’s massively unfair?

I started playing a musical instrument at 12 and did GCSE music so it's not necessarily the case that you need to have started before secondary school.

GCSE music is meant to be achievable for anyone. My DC's (state) school provides free tuition and an instrument for anyone taking GCSE music. They say that anyone prepared to practice will be able to achieve the standard in the 2 years. The key word there is practice, you still need to put some time in outside of school.

So none of you have an interest to learn a musical instrument yet you and your dd think it’s unfair that she wouldn’t do well at music without playing a musical instrument. She never showed an interest to play a musical instrument. But you’re still green eyed at the kids, who did despite having the money to fund lessons for her.

Do you realise this is the same as getting upset if other kids do better than your dd in exams such as maths and English than her if they got private lessons and she didn’t? Afterall by all accounts you could afford such lessons.

I’m baffled at the entitlement of your op. I could sympathise a lot more if you were struggling financially.

Christ almighty, I need to get a life. Reading about and responding to the illogical whinging of a teenager when I had years of listening to my own whingers.

LOL at Juells

Stopping music totally is probably a step too far. Too bloody right it is. It's given little enough space in the curriculum as it is.

Ds3 (11) Has been playing piano since he was 8 and cello (through school) since 9. He practices piano every day and cello most days. He plays in two orchestras and a cello group because he is dedicated and wants to do it. He's now grade 4 piano and grade 2 cello. It really costs more than we can afford but we don't have holidays, nights out, takeaways etc so that he can do this. Your DD could start learning an instrument now and, if she puts the effort in, could be a reasonable standard by the time her exams come round.

Ds is hypermobile and hopeless at sport so will not be able to take PE as a subject but I don't suggest they do away with it because, you know, some people are good at it.

As a child (and growing up in a monoglot background and family), I was fascinated by foreign languages. (My earliest memory of Eurovision is learning a few numbers in French from the scoring at the end .) I was one of the top 4 in my year, and would probably have done well had I taken either language on to GCSE.

However, unlike OP’s DD, I didn’t have DPs who were interested in indulging their DC or would afford things for us. DPs were pretty wilful in their disregard of all things foreign (it was ‘just too difficult ‘ to do the day-trip to France I desperately wanted, even though it would’ ve cost us 4£ and we were holidaying only 2 miles from the fucking ferry port ). My DF made his attitude clear when I asked about going on a school trip: “I pay my taxes for your education, why should you expect me to pay more?”

So come GCSE choosing time, I envisaged the school exchange trip and being (as always) the ‘poor one ‘, staying home (yet again) while everyone else went away and getting no opportunity to practise the language with a native. Not an attractive proposition , so I gave up foreign languages. Following my experience, by OP’s logic I should be seeking to level the playing field so that kids with backgrounds like mine aren’t disadvantaged. Instead, I’m just trying to make sure my DD has more opportunities than I did.

My ds has never done dance outside of school. He's had no interest in it. It's totally unfair now that he can't do dance gcse just because those kids who have been passionate about it since preschool and have taken lessons and practised every day are so much better than him. Life is so unfair huh? He doesn't actually want to do it now but what if he did huh?

This seems like one of the most bonkers things I've read on here!

Should we scrap PE because it's not fair on those who don't do a sports club outside school?

Dumb down English exams because those who don't enjoy reading or have never set foot in a library are at a disadvantage?

I could go on, but there's no point. Boo hoo, it's not faaaaaaiiiiir. Get over it - the children who are good at instruments have spent countless hours practising instead of hanging out with their friends/ playing video games. One of my children practises hard and has just got distinction at grade 5, aged 10. My other child wastes hours watching YouTube videos of other people playing games. Of course the one who practises will do better at music. If you don't like music enough to practise an instrument, don't bother doing it at GCSE, there are plenty of other subjects to choose from!