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.

We are not a very musical family but DS2 seems to have a bit of a liking for it and seems to have a bit of a natural ability (definitely not inherited).

A few years ago (in year 5) he expressed an interest in having piano lessons so we signed up for a term with the music teacher who came into the school. Unfortunately we realised it just wasn't affordable for us so had to stop them, but the teacher was so keen on him keeping going she paid a third of the costs herself, arranged for the school\C of E church connected with the school to pay a third and we paid a third for the rest of the year. Unfortunately this did stop and then he went to secondary school.

2 years ago my husband was unemployed for a few months (I was only working part-time) so we qualified for free school meals and pupil premium funding. For about the last year the school have been paying for DS2 to have piano lessons once a fortnight out of pupil premium money as they get it for him for a few years, even though we don't still qualify for FSM. Nearly 2 years ago DS2 started his music GCSE, after only having had the 1 year of 'extra' music lessons, and he was excelling with it, I think this might have given his teacher the idea to ask for funding for more lessons. Even though there was little extra input outside of music lessons he is aiming for an 8 in his GCSEs, at parents evening on Thursday we were told he should get an 8 without any problems and he could get a 9!

So with a small amount of extra lessons he will easily pass his GCSE, and would have passed without it, so it is not impossible to do well in music without extra input, but I think extra lessons and a natural ability definitely help.

Boast - when we asked if DS would be capable of doing music A-level they said a definite yes (unfortunately his school doesn't offer it so he'd have to consider travelling elsewhere if he wants to pursue that), and that would be if he doesn't have any more private lessons.

So it is not necessarily impossible to excel in music without extra lessons.

It's entirely possible to get to GCSE performance standard in 2 years if you work at it, depending on what instrument you do. I know a lot of people who've done it. Singing is a free instrument, you don't need to buy a voice. Most percussionists don't have much of their instrument at home either and practise at school (if you play orchestral percussion it is unlikely you are going to have bloody timps at home!).

You don't have to have done anything more than the normal curriculum to access GCSE, the idea is that if you have an aptitude for it and willingness to work that you aren't excluded by need for more prior knowledge than a decent year 9 knowledge going into year 10. I know lots of people who pissed about on keyboards for practical up to year 9, then started music proper in year 10 and got a good result at GCSE.

Also, 'can't read music' well that's a big part of year 7-9 music, learning about genre and form and structure and period and reading music. So if you get to end of year 9 and literally know nothing then you've done nothing in the prep years, which isn't the fault of not being able to afford expensive out of school lessons!

Incidentally I did GCSE PE, as did my mate who never played for a school team, we both got decent marks and were both reasonably unsporty and crap at the practical. We tried hard (ish) and neither of us did out of school sports clubs.

What you're basically saying is, it's not fair that some people get immersed in extra learning for a subject thus making it easier. Well, life isn't fair, but if the school is offering enough to be able to learn the subject then just working at school and taking initiative at home will yield decent results.

Are all the boards similar in content.
My dd is doing Edexel
Broken down into Performance 30%, Composing 30% and Appraising 40%.

Scottish system is very different 50% for performance. Perhaps even more for performance in higher and advanced higher. The associated exam is more focused on listening rather than notation.

Ds1 taught himself music GCSE and took it a year early (He was so far ahead of the rest of his class that he was seen as disruptive so was shut in a room by himself and told to get on with it). Ds2 is currently being allowed by the (same) school to do music GCSE as an extra subject, (no lessons but a bit of support from staff). Both are musical (e.g. both having regular paid jobs as accompanists / church organists from their early teens). Ds1 however failed his PE GCSE - it's not unfair, just what your kids are interested in.

I completely get the OP and agree it is unfair.
I am in Scotland too and my family are not at all musical. So DD1, whilst she did lots of other out of school activities, didn't do an instrument.
She did recorder at school from around 8, then in P7 (so 10-11) she did the auditions for Piano lessons (only option at the time) and was one of the couple selected - about 10% of the class. Apparently she has a natural musical ear. (She was also then 'head hunted' for the senior choir - she'd never auditioned before)
She turned them down (without telling me first!) because her frenemy told her things like her hands were too small , she needed a full size piano at home and if she did piano she wouldn't be allowed to do two instruments at secondary and wouldn't be allowed to drop Piano to take up another 'more interesting' instrument. The other child took her place for the lessons... When she told me I was furious - but it was too late for them to change.
The child who took the lessons (dropped them in first year of secondary) got a basic keyboard (£70ish) to practise on at home - which her parents were told was good enough for starting out ...but I guess even that would still be restrictive for people on lower incomes.
I would/could have got her piano, no problem - I actually did get a digital piano - one good enough to get up to Grade 5. It was about £300 but you can get cheaper, around £150. And they can be stored under beds etc if space is a factor.
But I couldn't get her private piano lessons locally - there is a real shortage of teachers, it took a year to get her on a waiting list and she was on the list for over a year before we gave up.
And has been said - they aren't cheap - £20+ for 30 mins - another limiting factor for some children.
At the end of S1 (1st year secondary) they had to drop either drama, art or music. The music teacher said as she hadn't already achieved grade 2 (? I think it was -might have been 3) she would probably not pass Nat 5 music at the end of S4 ...there was no point in her continuing. So she dropped it.
And that annoyed me too - how can you have a subject at school that unless your parent can afford to pay for lessons/buy instruments you can't get a qualification in. (I guess they could have had two years of term time lessons by then - if they were in the top 10% of their primary class... competing against children who had music lessons outside school...)
For pleasure, not grades she had private guitar lessons. She gave them up to work for her exams etc , but at least she can play for pleasure.
DD2 - 6yrs later - better. They did have more choice of instrument lessons at school (woodwind as well as piano). There was a cost involved if they were selected (think £200 a year), you could rent an instrument for a deposit and if you were on FSM it was free. She isn't musical at all and wasn't selected - again only a few were selected - say 15%.

But DD2's class also did recorder and then Ukulele too. So the whole class has had a chance to play easily affordable instruments - just wish they had started them at a slightly younger age so they had more chance to develop an interest.

I don't think the exams should be dumbed down - just children be given more opportunity/ more even playing field. Even if it is an earlier assessment to let parents know/the school if a child has a talent. And to look at helping those from poorer backgrounds sooner.

And some children who have had years of lessons have sat the Nat 5 music exam early...so they have more time to concentrate on other subjects.

You won’t be fit enough to excel in PE just in school PE lessons. I’d say that’s very similar. Child from sedentary family won’t have the skill or fitness to be selected for teams - self perpetuating cycle.

I honestly don't understand why you're making such a big deal about a subject that you say your daughter has no interest in whatsoever? If she did, she could have singing lessons (rather than learning an instrument) in which she'd learn music theory. Of course she'll be at a disadvantage of she's in a class which her peers are interested in and she isn't.

I disagree entirely with your idea that in other subjects one doesn't have to do work outside school to excel. To excel, you have to not only understand and apply what you're being taught, but must relate it to other subjects and have a truly great understanding. To excel, you have to show enough of an interest in a subject that you want to study it further and in more depth than you're taught it in a few classroom hours a week.

YADNBU! My ds took music for GCSE. His music teacher encouraged him to. He does not play an instrument. He is a solo singer.

You won't believe the grief he has had on the run up to GCSE exam. He has completed his compositions and practical exams with no.problem. Teacher has promised time and again that he will be working on theory for exam. Ds is due to do his theory exam in 2 weeks. No theory lessons have been provided as out of a class of 12 eleven of the students are musicians and have learnt theory outside of school. D's is beside himself. He needs a good grade in music to get him into drama and music college.

The drama teacher has rarely turned up for class for the past 2 years either. Exam is next week and now teacher has gone long term sick. The students have no idea what they are supposed to be revising. Great!! 😣

Unless it has changed radically I think you'll find that the tests for selection are based not on current knowledge and ability but on identifying those with a good ear and the potential to do well. And for what it's worth, I did a crash higher (ie in one year with out doing the standard grade first) in music playing the recorder for the performance element and doing better than those in my class who had been playing violins etc since primary school (they got more nervous than I did that afternoon) so as others have said it can be done. It can't however be done without a willingness to put in the practice. I had a 45 minute shared lesson (between 2) twice a week, but played every day for an hour or two because I enjoyed it. I also worked at the theory side on my own because I don't actually have a particularly good ear,and have no natural sense of rhythm but I could do the theory by treating it as maths (learn the formulae and you can produce correct but uninspired work though without the flair and creativity that others could bring to it).

Appletree: but surely the competition for drama and music college will be kids who live and breathe drama and music? These subjects are vocations. Young people who learn and play and practice throughout their waking hours! Spend their summers doing youth theatre. Why does he want to go to music college if his only engagement with music is in-lesson GCSE?

Granted the school sounds negligent in preparing them, and for a school qualification should be supporting them accordingly.

That's not true. My DD has done N5 and Higher, and the majority of her class aren't musical and have just done keyboard and tuned percussion?

the tests for selection are based not on current knowledge and ability but on identifying those with a good ear and the potential to do well

This. My ds1 had to sing during his audition in school for the violin (he didn't pass). I've heared of this a few times, no idea why but there you go. Bog all to do with violin-playing aptitude though.

A year later and he was selected to play the guitar...and one of his friends was not, despite already having private lessons and ds not so much as holding a guitar before.

They may have been trying to establish if they could sing in tune, copy pitch, or various other things. A lot of playing the violin is listening to the relational sound of notes you are playing. You don't have frets (sp?) to tell you where fingers go.

I disagree about art to some extent. I used to spend hours and hours as a primary school child practising drawing and painting. Trying to draw 3D buildings with vanishing points, trying to mix paint to make different skin tones. I would do it over and over again. I only got a B in art gcse as I wasn’t exceptional but all the practice helped.

To some extent you can teach yourself as a child to read music and a secondhand keyboard helped me. But without money for lessons I was never going to be any good. So I do agree it would be nice to do more music at primary level. The arts and sometimes science is often neglected to the detriment of our culture. Most leading sportsmen, artists and musicians now had some kind of private tuition or education. Didn’t The likes of Kenneth Branagh have very humble beginnings? Who knows what untapped talent is out there?

That was the case when I was at school in the late 90s.

In class the teacher focused on the ones who already knew and we would just watch.

I opted to do it at GCSE as music would have been a sensible choice alongside drama and dance that I was hoping to do at college but realised I couldn't ever catch up and switched

Several years ago now, but my sister did GCSE music whilst never doing music lessons outside of school. This was primarily due to cost. She got a grade A or A* regardless. However the music teacher was fabulous and allowed her additional time in the music rooms to get extra practise and support in.

Mind you and FWIW the children in dd's GCSE drama classes who are achieving the highest grades are usually those who do additional drama outside of school or who get fully involved in the school drama productions.

Hmm I don’t think you ‘have’ to do it out of school but obviously it helps just like any extra out of school practice will help with any subject.
My dd was selected to play an instrument in primary after passing the musical aptitude test and had never played an instrument before. Only one of the other children selected already played an instrument - it was all the higher ability children who scored highly in the test regardless of whether they already played an instrument.

It is unfair but children who have learned an instrument are almost always a lot in advance of those who haven't and by GCSE it is extremely difficult to catch up. In our LEA musical instrument cost £125 a year if on PP. That's approximately £2.50 a week so I think even those on very low incomes could usually afford it if they really wanted their children to learn. You used to be able to do GCSE without having previously learned an instrument but they see to have changed the requirements now (unless it varies by exam board) so that you have to have at least grade 4 to even start.

You can do GCSE without having learned an instrument beforehand, and as I said previously, my DC's school provides 1-1 tuition and instruments free for those doing GCSE. This is a very recent thing though.

DD did GCSE Drama with no outside activities at all and achieved an A. She also did GCSE Photography, which was seriously hard work.

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

I'm genuinely confused. Don't students have homework in those subjects? If they didn't practice those subjects outside of school by completing homework tasks and applying themselves to studying for exams outside of school then I don't think that they would do very well. Also, some people can afford tutors for those subjects too. So, I don't understand why you're singling out music. I think natural talent and a natural aptitude in subjects that you are interested in is going to affect how well you do too. However, it is unfair that some people afford more and better opportunities and I think that would be true of all subjects.

At ds’s school there are children doing gcse who don’t do it out of school. They lean the basics in years 7-9 including attending vocal group & after school music theory club so by year 9 they know whether or not they have an aptitude

At ds’s school (start in year 9 due to the middle school system) there is a girl who will be opting for gcse who hasn’t done music before. She started by attending choir & the music teacher is going to work on some songs with her & enter her for Grade 5 Singing next year. She will have to get her theory up to scratch but thatbwill he covered in class & there is the option to stay behind after school.

Subjects like music require commitment.

You can do GCSE without having learned an instrument beforehand, and as I said previously, my DC's school provides 1-1 tuition and instruments free for those doing GCSE. This is a very recent thing though.

I think that may depend on the exam board. DDs' school used to do that but now they have to have grade 4.

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

She’s wrong and I’m not really sure why you’re believing that’s the case just on her say so?

Plenty of children do well without having played before S1. They will need to practise obviously, but they’d also need to homework in every subject.

Appletree: but surely the competition for drama and music college will be kids who live and breathe drama and music? These subjects are vocations. Young people who learn and play and practice throughout their waking hours! Spend their summers doing youth theatre. Why does he want to go to music college if his only engagement with music is in-lesson GCSE?

Because at aged 13 my ds discovered he could sing and asked for private vocal lessons to extend his vocal range. It was around this time he joined a local am dram group. For the past three years he has lived and breathed singing and performing in various categories and venues.

At age 14 he looked at GCSE choices. As well as career choices. We looked at exam grades needed to get a place in 6th form college studyjng performing arts as this is his ambition. He looked at doing music as you do not need to play an instrument for the practical elements and he could use his voice to pass the practical elements. We discussed this with his music teacher at parents evening. Music teacher assured him that the theory part of the exam is no longer about notes, manuscripts, sharps, flats etc but is based more on listening and evaluating pieces of music from different periods. Teacher said ds can certainly do GCSE music as they will be learning the 'Theory' element in class.

The class has not learnt the theory needed. Mainly because all the students, except ds, already know what is required as they have learnt it through their private music lessons.
This week (2 weeks before exam) students have been given past GCSE papers to complete as revision.

Although music theory as we know it, (Theory that's needed to play instruments) is not included in the paper, it seems that most of the questions are asking for sound knowledge of musical terms which are needed for the evaluation of scores.

DS took music as it appeared this would be a subject he could gain a decent grade (according to his music teacher two years ago). He is unlikely to obtain the grades he needs in other academic subjects.

He took drama and music as he wants to get into drama and music college - not to study music. He couldn't do art as that was in the same box as drama. So ds has to sit 3 sciences that he has no interest in and will never need, 'RE, Welsh as we live in Wales it is compulsory, he does not speak Welsh - like most people living in South Wales. He has no chance of gaining good grades in these subjects. Students in Wales also have to waste time doing Welsh baccalaureate. The time wasted by him attending these subjects would have been better spent if school had offered extra music theory classes, if his usual music teacher thought it a waste of time teaching one person when everyone else in the class didn't need to be taught.