The best Independent schools generally take the highest qualified teachers?

[Hamishbear]

It might be obvious to many that the most academic schools insist that their teachers have an outstanding degree from one of the best universities but it wasn't to me.

For example if you want a job in Maths at Guildford High school allegedly you need a first in Maths from a well regarded university. You obviously need to be an outstanding teacher in the fullest sense too.

So do the elite schools usually have the best teachers? I suppose it stands to reason that there is more competition for jobs at schools that have a fantastic reputation?

Although it is true that there is a funding problem and typically you either have to be wealthy or VERY poor in the state system to be able to benefit from all that is on offer. And at regional and national ensemble level - a level that maybe Xenia is not familiar with, and where private and state school pupils mix with typically a mixture of state and personal funding - it costs an absolute bomb.

Essentially, the music world is meritocratic - they want the best people and they don't care from whence they come - but currently the people in charge of funding seem to have an agenda to keep the arts as the province of the posh and/or monied. To be fair, my lot did little better when they controlled funding - in my experience they did a lot more for the very economically disadvantaged but once you are on even an average income there is little or no help at all. The much trumpeted schemes to widen access which typically (although not always) focus on group provision (e.g. whole class instrumental learning) do not cut the mustard but it is wholly inaccurate to characterise that sort of scheme as all that is available within the state system.

There is no doubt that if you took say 5 local state and private schools in most areas of the country there is much better and more music at the private schools. Now I am not saying children in the state sector cannot find their way to the national children's orchestra and the like or weekend lessons at various good places but in general if you want your run of the mill child to get a good music experience you are best to pay fees for that.

As both I and Met are very happy with the private/state provision and think we both get a great deal there is no point in arguing over it.

What I hope most schools who give decent career advice advise is that most musician earn zilch and you'd be better off keeping it as a hobby and win your organ or choral scholarship to an Oxbridge college, have fun with it but pick a decently paid career instead. Great hobby. Hard way to feed yourself.

@Xenia you may have 'no doubt' but as I said, my many friends who actually work in this field disagree. And the fact is that almost all parents WILL be paying fees for music whether it's in a private or a state school, and the level of fees they will be paying will be the same. Because Peri teachers don't levy different scales of fee for different schools. The only difference is apparently at county level given what one poster mentioned above (that private school kids were excluded from county music activities).

I know of two young people who opted to do 6th form at the local FE college rather than their 'best in the city' private school because the music there is poor whereas at the college it is very very good. Both are now studying music, one at an RG university (because she wants to teach music in a school rather than perform/do instrumental teaching) and one at one of the London conservatoires.

That having said, having looked into it in some detail, I doubt that many or even any children educated in the UK would be able to meet the academic requirements to study music at a European conservatoire because our A level syllabus doesn't meet the academic requirements those institutions usually expect. Many students at UK conservatoires do get some or all of their instrumental tuition sourced from those places though, through reciprocal arrangements (which often involve hopping on the Eurostar regularly).

Regarding the feeding yourself issue - my friends are not noticeably thin (well, one of them is a bit scrawny but that's due to choice not poverty, he is currently insanely successful). But yes, it's something I worried about sufficiently on my own part to ultimately choose a different path and it is something I worry about on DD1's behalf. She only knows successful musicians so I think she may have a rose tinted view of what she might expect to get out of life.

Gosh, I think that we're talking about things at a different level here.

I have no ambitions for my DCs to become musicians. It strikes me as not being very practical in terms of providing bacon. If they want to be musicians, or trapeze artists, I will love them and encourage them and support them, of course. But being a musician, like being an architect, is One Of Those Careers that demands a huge degree of talent, a huge degree of commitment, and is ultimately Very Bad at bringing home the bacon.

What I want for my DCs is to be musically literate and able to enjoy the world of music. That seems to me to be a harder thing to achieve in a state school than in a private school. Much harder.

@hopefully I suspect you are basing your view on a tiny sample or even no sample at all. If people want to resort to blind prejudice then that's their prerogative but they should accept it for what it is. There are advantages that private schools can clearly confer but the quality of music education depends on an individual school, and to a certain extent on the geographical area in which it is located, not upon the sector in which it operates.

As both you and Xenia have pointed out, music is not a universally lucrative career (particularly the non 'pop' areas). Therefore, the children of musicians are fairly likely to be at state school - certainly the school age kids of my conservatoire teacher friends are at state school. Given that musical talent tends to run in families, and given that the musical life of a school is wholly dependent on the abilities and enthusiasm of its cohort, do you genuinely think that the children of merchant bankers are likely to contribute as much as the children of musicians to a school's musical life?

It has always been a great source of regret to me that I have never had access to any music education. My primary school had a choir and only those who got into the choir were given the option of learning to play an instrument. They are also the only ones who were taught even the recorder. I am afraid I did not have a good voice - not even good enough for that little mediocre choir and so my music was limited to one lesson a week where we practiced a few hymns for assembly. My mother would not afford piano lessons despite my asking (and we dint have a piano although my aunt did).I had several aunts and uncles who were good musicians and who played instruments however my mother took the view that learning to play would lead me to a likely career as a lounge lizard - playing piano in a pub or club or bar.

At SM music was virtually none existent I recall our music teacher attempting an education of the ABC of composers. I can?t remember who A was. B was Beethoven and D Chopin. We never got to D.

Hence I have a black hole for music. I like listening to some various and eclectic mixes but know little or nothing of it.

My DW however is an accomplished musician. A classical musician. I love listening to her and have learned lots from her. I also learned a lot from TV over the years. I have encouraged my DS, although I do not push, to listen to music, learn from his mum, and to play for enjoyment. He is young so his skills are limited and we know this nut he has an interest and is full of knowledge. That is good.

Most of the state schools I have worked in or had contact with have had no real music to mention. I recall when I first trained as a teacher even going into one school where the pupils had refused to sing even in assembly. No music lessons at all there.

My present school has a strong music dept and several choirs. They strip local music festivals of their prizes. In fact the last county one, they won everything going. They have some accomplishment in national competitions too and have been invited to sing in Europe and the USA. We also have a number of choirs who "hire out? their services for weddings and similar and for church festivals. All in all a good show. I fear it passes me by because I have no ear for any of this - although I can hear they are good. Similarly we have an orchestra and several soloists on different instruments. Music is encouraged in school. An independent school.

My school opening a new performing arts centre on September. The biggest issue is parental income- very few can afford tuition and so our students are limited. It pains me. I had piano lessons from age 6, flute during secondary and am a trained singer. As head of performing arts, I do what I can and so we have a lot of singing and musical theatre BUT I am presently a department of one (v small school) and there is only do much I can do. That said, my department is doubling in size in September and the new teacher is keen to start instrumental groups ASAP. We may not be able to do as much as larger schools but what we do is of good quality and is available to every single child in the school.

I don't think we disagree on too much. The privat parents are happy with music teaching in their schools and most of the state are. Some music in state schools is good. The big sucecsful private schools packed to the gills with high IQ girls and boys tend to be full of children who are also keen to succeed at anything so they tend to have good music too with the 50% participation in private lessons v 3% in state schools.

I think I am not alone in saying some state schools want more resources for music. If I am wrong and there are enough that's fine - let's cut it back and save my taxes as I said above.

I don't agree children of merchant bankes aren't musical. I have worked in or been connected to the City for nearly 30 years and huge efforts are put into children by parents and much encouragement in relation to music. If I ever mention one of my children has won a music scholarship everyone has something to say about music and their own children and the like. As classical music learning helps your brain it's not surprising that those who are bright like it (although it is best as a hobby if you want to be able to eat).

Anyway it's not a competition. I think children benefit hugely from exposure to and playing good music nad having the discipline to sit down and practise and also learn music theory.

The thread took a rather strange turn. If we accept that 50\5 of children at private schools learn an instrument and 3% or whatever it is at state schools clearly as there is more funding classical music in private schools is better but there are many many more children in state than private so a lot will be good there. Indeed there are also the specialist music schools and lots and lots of private school parents have chidlren at choir schools. I haven't although I suppose I could have done as all 3 boys sing pretty well, but that is another big area although of course many cathedrals are not connected to a private boarding school (although the best tend to be) and state school trebles can join. I do not know if it still happens but some state school pupils are paid for by local authorities at Chetham's, Purcell School etc.

Xenia how does it make you feel that Adele and Cheryl Cole from a saturday night ITV shiny floor tv programme, both comprehensive educated (tho' Adele admittedly at a selective music comprehensive) and undeniably, gloriously common are both in a far better position to pay private school fees for as many children as they choose to have than any single one of Harry Christopher's singers? Ultimately with you it's rampant snobbery and not feminism at all.

and by the way, it's not classical music study that helps with learning generally, it's all forms of music.

I love to see other women being successful. I don't seem to hvae the jealousy some other women have. However we all know that children from private schools do much much better on average than others and CC is the exception. CC grew up about 5 minutes from where I did. I don't know what the point that is being made here. I want children exposed to all kinds of music although they get more than enough pop music without also thrusting it on them at school.

@Xenia you seem to have difficulty in grasping that the lower number of state parents who are able to afford music tuition does not mean that the quality of music tuition is poorer in state schools. It just means fewer young people are doing it. You seem incapable of accepting that your narrative that private schools are always best is not universally true. And of course the very best state schools - such as DD1s school- are just as packed to the gills with high IQ children as as private schools (hence in my area, many private school pupils are at their private schools as a result of failing to get into DD1s school). If you keep peddling a flawed narrative - that private schools are always better no matter what area you are considering, then don't be surprised if people have an issue with that!

HOwever I am righto n the whole. Most of the schools with the best A level results are private schools. There are a few academic selective schools that are okay for music or even very good but not most state schools. There is a huge problem of funding for music in state schools.

If you cream off the clever rich children and put them in small classes with fantastic facilities it creates an environment conducive, with some good teaching, to great A-level (or bac, or whatever) results.

That does not mean that you cannot have a very successful life and be very good at many things, if you have been to state school, right the way through.

The trouble with state school provision in England is that it is very patchy - there are some terrific schools (round where my parents live, in Kent, the state schools and the private schools rival one another at both primary and secondary level and pupils go in and out of state and private during their schooling) and there are some dreadful ones. What state schools are not are universally second best to private schools. They just aren't.

You are not right 'on the whole'. I made the point about funding and that is clearly correct. However, the music teaching there is in state schools is completely on a par with private schools. More teaching does not mean better teaching, especially in the light of the fact that it is generally the same people doing the teaching.

Sadly I don't think Cheryl Cole is a fantastic example since she can't sing, can't compose (but she can dance a bit).

You really need to grasp the fact that just because people do something in a music room in a private school, it doesn't mean that the teaching they are getting is better than that in a state school purely by virtue of the school being private. The situation is much more nuanced than that (and may also be the same for other subjects, but those aren't my specialism so I can't comment with authority - another thing you might want to consider).

Merely stating an opinion over and over again doesn't make it true. That isn't the case in the real world, it isnt the case in the legal world, and it isn't the case regarding the teaching of music.

We'll just have to agree to differ. I didn't say the teachers were any different (they can often work in both sectors, we know loads of them) but that there were more children learning within the school and the groups tend to be better and to a better standard in the better private schools.

Xenia, as ever, you are missing the point.

The comparison should not be between 'selective private schools in North London' and 'all state schools' - that compares apples and pears.

A proper basis for comparison would be 'children of the same ability in different sectors' - ie. clever, well-off children from very supportive homes - what is their experience of music in every different type of school, and how does that compare nationwide?

For example, the 3% quoted nationwide is probably at least 50% of the children who have equivalent home backgrounds and incomes to private school children - and it is that income and background that makes the difference, not schools.

The trouble is you can't be sure how things would have turned out if your dc had gone elsewhere. I strongly suspect though that ds, from a non-musical family with no expectations that he would continue music would never have taken up a second instrument at a state school and would have been a lot less likely to continue with his first. You never can tell though, and I'm also unsure what difference it makes in the long term either way, except giving him another hobby and a sense of accomplishment.

I'm not, of course, saying that state school music should be limited to those with higher incomes. The reason state school music should be better funded is to provide individual music lessons to those from homes who would not be able to afford it without subsidy.

I'm just pointing out that Xenia's sweeping assertions are meaningless because they use an incorrect basis of compariosn - you cannot compare the experience of a child at a selective private school with one in a comprehensive without correcting for the factors of wealth, academic potential and family background. Cross-sector comparisons of any meaning can ONLY be made when appropriate corrections are made for these factors - ie give the same starting point, how well would the same child do in different sectors?

Not only are her comparisons meaningless her original assertion that the teaching of music in private schools is better is factually incorrect.

gelatinous - my dd "from a non-musical family with no expectations that she would continue music " will be taking up another instrument at her state school on the advice of her teacher and i have no reason to believe she's terribly unusual (or specially musical). I think your generalisations about state school music seem rather lackinng in evidence and based instead on unfounded assumptions about lack of ambition/facilities etc in state schools.

Metabilis - Xenia is being rather naughty and deliberately winding you up, I think. I'm sure she can understand the difference between quality and quantity but is choosing not to.

I'm not in the least wound up I'm highly amused by her ill informed posturings.

b&b they aren't entirely unfounded assumptions. I know a lot of children in state schools and the only ones who have taken up second instruments are those whose parents rather than their school have encouraged it (and mostly they are from musical families). I am also influenced by the many people who have automatically assumed that I and/or dh must be musical for ds to have got where he has.

I am not surprised there are exceptions to this of course (so I conceed my 'never' in the previous post should have been 'very much less likely') and I am very happy that not all state schools are that limited. I am also sure that there are plenty of private schools that are nowhere near as good musically as ds's either - it does have an excellent reputation for music so it's not not really a good example of independent schools to use as a comparison.

I would say though that the funding difference between the two sectors must surely make a difference? There are not many state schools that can afford a full year groups set of stringed instruments (I do know there are some that do this, but it's not standard) or can hire an orchestra of professional musicians to allow performers to play concertos?

In the National Youth Orchestra there are roughly equal numbers of children from maintained and independent schools, but only 7% of children are at independent schools. Now I know that those 7% are more likely to have parents who can afford music lessons/expensive instruments, but on the other hand children from very musical families are less likely to be able to afford private education and so more likely to be in maintained sector (as mentioned up thread), so doesn't that suggest that independent schools are more successful in turning out excellent musicians?

Good point on National Youth Orchestra. Also look at where our Olumpians went to school. 10% of children go to private and/or state grammar school I heard Lampl say on R4 yesterday. (8% private schools). Yet it is not 8% of Olympic athletes from the UK from private schools. It is more like 50% because as with music the sport is better too.

The Times keeps running articles about less good music in state schools. I still believe they could do more and better whatever Meta might say.

However I don't think there is one hobby for children to have and that must be music - that would be like the Chinese - though must learn the piano and / or violin and nothing else counts. Variety is good. It's good for children to be open to a wide range of interests so when they are older they pick what they like best. I am just as pleased if my children run as sing.

Sadly at the two state schools my children have attended so far there is no musical provision whatsoever. My children play two musical instruments but only because we have sourced private tutors and encourage them at home. None of their friends play any musical instruments. Many music services/music centres have also been scrapped due to funding cuts so there are sadly no peripathetic teachers available anymore.