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?

Not all G&T provision will be by separate lessons. For many subjects, they will simply tackle G&T via normal differentiation.

I think Art probably lends itself to tiny classes.

I think the crux of the matter is this, I provide an after school music group for 8 children because that's all that I can purposefully accomodate at any one time.

We have paid instructors come in who run other clubs - sports, art, drama, etc and these are on a first come first served/waiting list basis.

I don't get paid any extra so any talk of 'funding' is irrelevant.

What should I do? Increase the number of chn in my club and dilute it's quality? Run a club every lunchtime and every evening?

Art is an area where children's experience in the classroom might not be ideal if the teacher doesn't have a flair for it. In this case, it is entirely appropriate that more able children receive extra support in this way.

We aslo have parents volunteering their services for clubs - football and cookery currently.

OP -havent read the whole thread but YANBU. 7 is a ridiculously early age to be "streaming" gifted and talented artists - my sister is heavily into the art scene, got A*s at GSCSE and A level and a first class degree in history of arts and still a really talented artist but at 7 all of her pictures looked like potatoes (we call it her Mr Spud phase) and if it wasnt for the encouragement of the lovely art teacher she had at school in the arts club (open to all - generally 20 kids or so in it) she would never have developed her interests. I can understand streaming when they're older - say 13 - and starting to think more about what they might want to do with their lives - and those who are more interested in art wanting to focus on that instead of something else.

Apologies, haven't read all posts but I think it is utter rubbish!!! Why put invite only classes on the list? Teachers will surely know who is G & T already and should approach them individually.

To a 7 year old it is rejection and cruel, similiar to being not invited to a party Horrible for her.

They are not streaming. It's an extra-curricular class- the art lessons are still taught in mixed ability groups. The fact an extra curricular G&T class is being run does not necessarily mean that the quality of those lessons is poor.

Funding is relevant for extra-curricular art clubs because the extra materials required cost money. The funding does not pay the teacher.

Stalemate tethersend, welcome to the world of beige. It's OK to provide special classes for SEN types, but not for G&T types who might be seen as thinking themselves better than others, exclusive.
I have a daughter and a son, one at each end of the bell curve and I'm delighted that their school provides what they need, rather than what other parents feel should be on offer.
I've always felt that schools should not offer facilities to any paying clubs, there are many children who would love to take part in activities that their parents can't afford to fund, and schools shouldn't support the ethos of you get what you pay for.

I think it s fantastic that the school is publicaly celebrating talent.

Some of you guys are so missing the point. If you are having a private party, please don't broadcast it as though all are invited then thumb your nose at the rest of us.

swampster, consensus was (almost) reached earlier in the thread that the club should not have been advertised on the list in such a way.

I have no problem with it being advertised, it is saying to the others we value talent

Sorry, Morosky, not trying to speak for you

I think it should have been listed separately along with other SEN and G&T provision. What has been handed to parents sounds more like an audit of extra-curricular provision.

Of course children can show g&tedness at an early age, noone's denying that. Similarly some kids might shine later on or even plough away determinedly and get there and I personally don't think that 'you don't make the mark' is a good message to give them. They should be encouraged to pursue everything that interests them and taught that if you believe and try, you can achieve.
Totally agree with the logistics argument, however and music and art are more difficult to differentiate within class and that it should have been under SEN/G&T provision as a separate document. The words 'invitation only' are the snub I think.

At our school every term the children are given a lost of all the extra curricular clubs offered throughtout the entire school. Some are free, some are paid. Some are open to certainyear groups, some are not. Some are invitation only.

I really don;t see the problem as long as there is a wide variety offered.

Imagine the admin time if about 20 different lists had to be produced.

tethers