Specialist Music School

[curlew]

Our best non-selective Secondary School is hugely oversubscribed and we are outside the catchment area. The school takes 10% of its intake on "mucical ability" My dd is going to have a go at getting a place - she has played the clarinet for 18 months now and although she hasn't taken any exams yet, her teacher says she is at grade 3 level and she will take the exam early next year. She also sings - has always sung solos at nativity plays and things since reception. However, the school gets 200odd applicants for 18 places, so I know that realistically she has very little chance of a place. Has anybody got any advice for me about how to prepare her for the audition, both musically and in terms of the almost inevitable disappointment? Any contributions gratefully received!

www.abrsm.org just has "singing" whatever the age. There was no lower age limit but you have to be brilliant treble etc to do it and his father was a cathedral organist and the whole family on both sides sing. Definitely easier for us all to get grade 8 singing than piano, violin etc although the aural test, sight reading etc are the same whatever the instrument.

My brother at 15 by then his voice had broken when he got his distinction in grade 8 but my 12 year old son who got merit did it as a treble. I didn't feel he was over strained. Boy treble is a wonderful sound, one of the few things boys of that age can do and be as good as an adult (better even, but a different sound)

They changed the voice/singing exams about 8 years ago - I know now it is just singing, but it didn't used to be.

Are you saying your son's father was a cathedral organist? Which cathedral (if you don't mind me asking?).

He was but I don't want to be identified. I looked at his certificate last night and it was singing, not anything different from the normal grade 8 singing. When my siblings and I did grade 8 singing it was also singing but we were about 15 , 17 and 19 I think so could have done whatever was offered for adults at that stage anyway. I do think if you're a very good singer that singing exams are easier than piano/violin etc because it's more of a natural talent. I always found it much much easier and it's still my favourite thing even now.

First his my ex husband. Second his my son... that was confusing. I joined his choir. Lovely romantic place to court. A 1000 year old building with a massive organ after dark and your voice echoeing around.

Xenia - not often I agree with you, but here goes...

My sons attend state secondary school that is a 'performing arts' college currently also applying for a second 'specialism' in Science.

To be fair to the school they do encourage the children to learn an instrument - around a third of the pupils do so.

In my view the reality is this...

Specialist (or 'college') status will soon allow a school to select up to 10% of its intake as children with an aptitude in the specialist subject.

What this will achieve is that bright children living outside the 'catchment' area for the school will be able to gain a place. My sons' school already achieves the highest academic grades in the area. In future, the brightest children who would previously have been sent to a 'less desirable' school will gain a place at my sons' school instead.

So the results will improve further, presumably at the expense of other schools.

So the 'middle class, motivated' parents will strive ever harder to gain a place for their child at the 'best' school and the downward spiral of poor achievement will accelerate at the others.

A bleak picture indeed.

fp, it just makes me laugh. If it's specialist in that area 100% should be brilliant musicians or scientists or score the top marks in an entrance test in whatever is specialises in like languages. Why just 10%? That's ludicrous. It's like saying here's a school specialist in PE but only 10% of you have to be any good at PE. The rest of you can be hopeless. It's like some kind of perverse joke. Of music and 10% are musical but 90% are tone deaf.

I really don't know how 'specialism' is defined, but as far as I can tell there is no difference whatsoever between the curriculum taught at my sons' school and that of the so-called 'Maths & Computing' College or the 'Sports College' elsewhere in the town.
In fact I shall amuse you further by telling you that the Maths & Computing College is renowned for having extremely poor IT staff and my sons' school regularly beats the 'Sports College' in local competitions.
We chose the school because it achieves good academic results, has no significant disciplinary issues and offers a wealth of extra curricular activities. Unfortunately I suspect that all these 'attributes' stem from the fact that it serves a predominantly fairly affluent area, so the parents can afford the school trips, music lessons etc, plus of course any extra tuition necessary to help their children gain decent GCSE grades.
As usual, the middle classes can afford to move into the catchment area of the best school, whereas those who live in social housing do not have this opportunity. The low-achieving schools are right in the middle of large estates of social-rented housing.
I suppose at least the 'college' system will give some of the bright children from less affluent backgrounds a chance to break away from an environment where disciplinary problems lead to under achievement.
The whole system makes me feel extremely uncomfortable - I'd like to live in a meritocracy where priviliges were earned, not bought, but I'm enough of a hypocrite that I won't play games with my own children's prospects - I made damned sure that we bought a house in the catchment areas of the best local primary & secondary schools even though I resisted the temptation to educate them privately.

Fortyplus - you're not on the Herts/Essex border by any chance?
You could be describing my area.
Xenia - the 'specialist' schools (round here anyway) are only allowed to select 10% of admissions and the selection is strictly controlled i.e. aptitude tests only - not proven ability.

So how on earth are they specialist? I suppose the Government's view is children are clean slates, all able to be made good at whatever we choose and it's what we put into them which gives us the result (and may be nothing wrong with that theory except we aren't all born with the same IQ or musical ability) and so they think let 10% be proven musical but let's give the 90% a good proportion of whom may be tone deaf or with an IQ of 90 have as good a chance as any at the so called specialist school. In other words the children aren't necessarily ripe for that specialism (90% aren't) but the teaching in that specialism is good and the buildings are spanking new usually.

WheresTheHamster - Nowhere near Essex but Herts County Council is our LEA.

Xenia - it's not just music - the school is a 'Performing Arts' College , so they receive extra funding for Dance & Drama, too. My 2 learn instruments but are more IT/Science/Maths orientated. I have to say it's a bit of a mystery to me! The school does put on an amazing theatrical production every 2 years, but I believe that other schools (ie without the Performing Arts specialism) do, too.

It's a load of old cobblers if you ask me!

Our local secondary school has acquired special status for foreign language teaching. It's laughable because this is what the school scored lowest in on their Ofsted report.

They couldn?t teach the children French and German proficiently, so now they?re teaching them Russian and Mandarin!

Well, maybe that approach works.

I despair at all the changes. So much money. So much waste when what you need is no changes, consolidation, time for things to bed down, stability. One of our local schools became a languages one.

I suppose the theory is that chidlren can be good at a lot of things and just to say cleverest 10% of children creamed off to grammar school isn't fair when some may be clever at maths and some English and some good at sport so let each child pick its own talent and then go to a school designed for that but you don't get that - you don't get a choice in your area of the performing arts, sciences or languages. Instead you get one in one specialisation nd you get parents going round saying wow this must be good because it has XYZ facilities and the floors are clean but in fact what matters is how good the teachers are and how well the children are taught and what results the school gets at the end of the day (plus ethos and all the other stuff).

I think that the only positive aspect is that the school is required to present a bid backed up by outside funding, so local businesses effectively 'sponsor' the school.

I bet there's money being made in all this, the building works, the private sector assistance. It's a fascinating market. It is Congnitas or something that Woodhead is involved with and runs cheap-ish private schools on one business model nad then there is that fundamentalist Christian creationist helping fund state schools including in Newcastle. A lot of interesting stuff being done by Blair. Then all the money being mae and paid through all the inspections schools now have to have compared with 20 years ago, all the SATS testing etc etc. Must be why the results are so much better.....

I wonder where it will end? A good friend is head of MFL at a popular local state school - he complains that today's A Level French & German require grammar of approximately the same standard that we needed for grades A or B O'Level 30 years ago.
I don't agree with the current system of Ofsted inspections, but I do find it strange that teachers are so paranoid about having their work assessed by outsiders - in industry it happens all the time.

Haven't read everything here but in response to the OP, if your DD hasn't taken any exams I would get her used to the pressure of a practical exam/audition situation.

At 10 I was a very confident reader in school and at church, I could sing solo and play piano in concerts etc but in my Associated exams just completely went to pieces (vomiting etc) and therefore gave up taking exams at all so was no use to have the extra curricular activity in later life if you couldn't "quantify" it.

This was an "affliction" which didn't go away - I recall feeling the same on doing my driving test at 18. I'm fine in written exams when I can do things "at my own pace" but give me a viva voce or any kind of practical and I'm screwed!

I suppose what I'm saying is that if she hasn't been put in that kind of situation you need to prepare her for that as much as the audition and the potential disappointment too. good luck!

I did compare my A level English lit in 1979 and my daughter's 3 years ago and I don't think the questions were too different but that's English where you've always had fairly general questions. I suspect the association board music exams and theory exams are one example of exams with the same and consistent standards and pass marks over the last 30 years so good for children to do.

The Associated Board is actually quite different from 30 years ago - different theory, different aural, different style of sightreading, and they're just about to overhaul the scales as well.

Is it? When my older children did grade 5 theory it was the identical red book I used. They took it about 7 years ago though. I did got my son through his grade 8 aural tests and they seemed much the same ones I did 20 years before but I didn't pay massive attention to it so I may be wrong. Has it been dumbed down?

not dumbed down, just changed. When I did it in (let me see now) 1985 there were a lot of questions like 'write out this ornament'. It's really quite different now - lots of using different clefs, and using actual pieces of music to host the questions. I don't think it's easier - in lots of ways it's harder as you really have to have your wits about you. There is a new AB reference book as well (well it's not new now) which is geared towards the new style exam.

Aural tests are also completely different now - again more emphasis on 'listening to a piece of music', especially in the lower grades (where you didn't have to do anything like this).

Okay, may have changed since my older children did it. Son did 2 grade 8s in the last 2 years and I accompanied him in one and I don't remember the aurals being that difference but it sounds like its better changes. I'll have a look if I put the twins in for grade 1 singing for fun.

Xenia, have a look at the New trinity Guildhall syllabus. Dh is quite impressed with it . It has a more inspiring choice of repertoire and can suit various vocal styles.

He is thinking of entering me in for it as a trial run before he tried his pupils.

I did Grade 5 years ago.

May be. I kind of always thought associated board was best and Trinity as a lot easier but I'm not by any means an expert.

That used to be the case, but since the merger with Guildhall and becoming QCA accredited they are much more recognised these days.

We put children through their musical theatre exams last summer and were very impressed. We got one of the head examiners and he was very good and his crits were thorough but constructive

Someone said to me his daughtyer was only doing "trinity" I think it was because she couldn't manage grade 5 theory. Is that still the case which would suggest it was still the easier option.