to think that Art Club 'by invitation only' is a bit wrong?

[MarkStretch]

Every term my DD's junior school send out a list of clubs which the children can take part in either at lunchtimes or after school. The list is varied and includes sailing club, engineering club, wildlife club etc and the teachers give up their spare time to lead these clubs. I think this is fantastic and my DD has loved taking part in some of them.

However, Art Club was included in the list. It stated afterwards (by invitation only).

DD came home yesterday in tears because 2 children in her class had been chosen to attend art club and she wasn't. I told her to speak to the art teacher and let her know that the next time some spaces came up could she please be considered as this is something she would really like to do. She said it doesn't work like that.

So I rang the school secretary to find out why it was by invitation only. She told me it is designed only for children who are 'gifted and talented' in art and no one else.

I'm a bit annoyed about that. Not the fact that my DD wasn't chosen but the fact they are basically creating an elitist group of children and separating them from the rest of the class who are deemed 'not good enough' to join the art club.

Surely if you're 7 and you like doing art then you should be encouraged?

Why is art any different from anything else? While your children's artwork might mean something to them mich, it doesn't mean it's any good.

This stupid notion (which IMO is at the base of this thread) that we are all equal when it comes to art when it is perfectly acceptable to streamline children in terms of ability for any other subject really irritates me.

And as for keeping the club a secret, do you expect schools not to tell all children that the football team are practicing after school because it might upset those children that didn't get selected? How absurd.

Can you tell I was rubbish at sport and went to art college?

Seriously though, I used to teach art at 2ndary school level and with a small group who are at a similar level of skill, you can set them challenges.

If your DD is so keen on art OP, perhaps you could spend some time with her doing it or find a Saturday morning art class for her to attend

A seven year old, instead of being 'traumatised' by non-inclusion of the secret squirrel art club, can learn - with parental support - two important life lessions from this:

1. That she/he is not channelling genius in a certain subject, but that someone else may be

1. That even if you're not the best at art, creating for creating's sake can be a beautiful thing (man)

"Art is very subjective and everyone can produce a piece of work which means something to them. Whether it's good or not is very subjective and I don't see how it's possible to measure artistic ability at the age of 7 (although I do understand that there are guidelines associated with the school curriculum)."

Mishy, they are 'guidelines' in the same way NC levels for Maths, English and science are. They are more than 'guidelines' for those subjects, ergo they are more than 'guidelines' for art. They are nationally recognised assessment standards, whether you agree with them or not.

Every child produces a piece of work which means something to them during school art lessons.

I cannot stress strongly enough that artistic 'ability' is not about fine motor skills. I have taught many students who can copy photos beautifully; however, that's all they can, or want to do. According to the National Curriculum levels, they are not 'good at art' and would certainly not be selected for a G&T programme, despite having exceptional fine motor skills. The brain still tells the fingers what to do. If the critical skills are lacking, this is reflected in their assessment.

I am of the opinion, however, that the teaching of art at primary school level needs a massive overhaul. All too often, it focuses on 'good drawing' or -shudder- cutting and sticking, and ignores precisely those observational and critical skills which go on to promote success at GCSE and A level. It also, IMO, takes some of the fun away.

I think the fact that the school recognises art as a valuable subject, and not just something tacked on to the curriculum at the end of term in order to make displays is a very positive sign that the quality of art teaching in lesson time for all students is very high.

ethersend, we have strong links with the local secondary school. Their lead art teacher has been in several times to run workshps for staff, and to work throughout the school with different classes. It has been very successful all round, really widened our understanding.

I think it's unfair. If it's for children who are G&T in art (who are rarely correctly identified in primary anyway) then it shouldn't be on the list at all.

and what tethers said

That sounds great, Goblinchild- IMO there should be more schemes like yours, and those using practicing artists.

How do you know a child is Gifted or talented if they have never been given the opportunity to progress their skills.

I teach secondary level and have never ran clubs that were only open to certain pupils. Most pupils who initially seem more able at a particular activity are usually those who have been given the parental support to achieve this.

For example at the moment my dd compared to others in her peer group looks like she is a fantastic footballer and swimmer, but shes not. She has just been given the opportunity by me to improve and extend those skills. When other children are also given these opportunities im sure they will equally be just as good if not better.

My point is all children should have the opportunity to be introduced to differing activities if they demonstrate an interest.

Talent is 20% natural ability and 80% hard work.

It's all a bit "there's a party but you're not invited." I'm very surprised at the number of people who thinks this is ok. I don't have a problem with clubs which are by invitation or teams which one has to earn one's place in. But if a club isn't it on offer to all, it shouldn't have been offered to all.

" When other children are also given these opportunities im sure they will equally be just as good if not better. "

Not true. We are not all born with the ability to excel at anything we practice hard enough at. In the case of an artistic talent, an artists brains are wired in a particular way, sure there is a lot for a potential artist to learn in the course of their practice, but really you are born an artist not made one. Sorry.

They are seven years old FFS!

in my experience, art has been taught well at primary (with one exception I can think of). There is an excellent art programme for primary teCHERS to dollow which is very clear about which skills are being developed and very rigorous in terms of covering all areas of art (not cut and stick ), there are peripatetic art specialists for some who can advise and some schools have links with their secondary.

Give over with the lazy shots at knocking primaries.

It's only your opinion, pinot, no need to apologise for it.

Oh im sure there are a few artists who are born that way. But we are talking about children and opportunity to express themselves in what they enjoy.

Who decides if they are good at something (AT 7) years old)in which they have never had the opportunity to try or be taught the necessary skills.

I think it is good that there are clubs like this but that they shouldn't be on the main list.

My DD who is 10 got invited to a couple of invite only art workshops (which ended up not running) which was great as she has dyspraxia so usually the notes home were about extra help and it was flipping lovely to see the words gifted and talented on something. At 7 she couldn't draw for toffee though, it came on suddenly this spring, quite bizarre it was.

AccioPinotGrigio, I'm afraid I disagree about being born an artist, not made one. I really do believe that art- and I include drawing in this- is a subject which can be taught if someone wants to learn.

poinsettydawg- I am a little at "Give over with the lazy shots at knocking primaries." You are going on your experience, I am going on mine; I have, unfortunately been witness to some appalling art lessons in primary schools which have consisted of little more than cutting and sticking -and they were the identified learning objectives. I am pleased if your experience contradicts mine.

I am in no way 'knocking' primaries. I have insufficient knowledge to teach at primary level- I am, however, criticising the way in which art is often taught at Key stages 1 and 2.

There are very few art specialists who become primary teachers, most opt for the secondary option, which allows for more specialism in one particular area. As a result, art at primary level is not usually taught by specialist teachers. Primary teacher training tends to focus on core subjects, and teachers can not be expected to be specialists in all areas- I would like to see more of the approach that Goblinchild's school adopts; I think that would be an excellent way of disseminating specialist knowledge.

I have to ask, as it is relevant, whether you are an art teacher? Forgive the nosiness...

'Who decides if they are good at something (AT 7) years old)in which they have never had the opportunity to try or be taught the necessary skills.'

cascade, get a grip. All these children have had the opportunity to develop art skills on a weekly basis as part of their normal curriculum access. The image of isolated waifs in the darkness with their noses against the glass, looking at delights from which they have been excluded is ludicrous.
Last year, all my class did painting in watercolour and acrylics, sketching, 3D modelling in card and papiermache claywork, sewing, collage, digital camera and animation, batik...I've forgotten the rest. And studied three artists in depth.

Goblinchild no need to be rude, im giving a polite response to the OP.

To be honest I know nothing about art im taking a general theme on giving children the same opportunities at what ever level they are at, at that particular time.

Im coming from a secondary experience, where all my pupils are taught twice weekly but if they wish to extend their skills they are all given the opportunity. I am constantly suprised and delighted that some of my pupils who were maybe not the strongest at year 7 are county/national player by the time they reach upper school.

For example at my school we are national champions at a particular sport but all children are invited to train and given vast amounts of time to practise their skills. It is open to all from beginners to advanced.

"all children are invited to train and given vast amounts of time to practise their skills. It is open to all from beginners to advanced."

But do you pick all children for the team or just the best?

You dont have 1 team, you have many teams depending on the numbers. All pupils then have the opportunity to play in all matches.
They play at the level they are at, at that particular time. But they all are taught and coached the same skills(depending on level) and all have the opportunity to improve.

The clubs are open to all.

I'm going to have to stop now I know you're a PE teacher.
DS is on the spectrum, he's never lasted more than a couple of after school sessions for any 'sporting activity' PE teachers have proved to be the most inflexible and exclusive breed for us, ready to drop and exclude anyone who doesn't fit the mould or requires a more individual approach to succeed.
Fortunately he has kayaking and distance walking to keep him fit.

I think the whole point is that if they are going to have separate clubs for the G & T children then fine, but don't taunt the majority of the children with something that they cannot partake in.
I have to say DDs school do this which is somewhat annoying but she is old enough to understand.
They advertise at the beginning of the school year their trips for the rest of the year. This year to make it easier ref payments the letter came out setting out all the trips and the payments/consent forms etc to be sent back by the end of the first month,
rather than coming in dribs and drabs. As a lot of children are boarders this makes it easier for their parents too.
What was I think a little 'naughty' was that they advertised a school trip at the end of the summer term to a well known theme park but with a caveat that only the children who had been on all the trip could go on this one. On the list were some trips that were 'by invitation only' so does that mean that the 'univited children' don't get to go on the fun trip at the end of June?

haha no problem. I think us as in women PE teachers are a different breed to our male counterparts. Fortunalely for me I work in a fantastic PE department where the males in my department are not typical to the ones I see in my borough. (I had to suffer 4 years training with some of those planks.)

Are there no G&T children in other subjects? Why isn't there an elite club for all subjects? Most young kids love art whether they're good or bad at it. I think it's a bit sad to be deemed 'not good enough to get in' for any subject at such a young age. there are less elitist ways of stretching bright kids.
With popular clubs it's easy to cater for all who want to do it by having different groups each half term or something.

G&T is a government initiative, and schools are legally required to identify and provide for students who are working at a (significantly) higher level than the national average.

Legally, there should be some kind of provision for G&T students in all subject areas. It doesn't necessarily follow that the other students experience sub-standard teaching or a poorer education as a result.

Many schools provide for G&T students through projects completed in school time, or where G&T students are 'off timetable' for a set amount of time in order to complete a specific project.

I think it's the initiative itself which should be questioned, rather than the school.