Is 8.5YO DD doing too much? (Long)

[notquitesureagain]

This is long but I would really appreciate some considered, non-judgey responses. DD is in year 3, she's 8 and a half. She does suzuki music, which is quite a big commitment (practice every day for up to half an hour, and an individual and group lesson each week). Other than that, she does a couple of sports clubs at school (one in the morning, one in the afternoon) - these are things she really wants to do (cried bitterly when I signed up two late one term and she didn't get to do one of them). There are no exams or certificates so there's no pressure associated with them.

She was doing a swimming lesson too but we're dropping that as of this week because she doesn't like it (and neither does other DC) so frankly I'm v happy not to have to pay for it and/or ferry them there each week.

At school they are given one homework a week (should take 30 mins a week but she really dawdles so it prob takes longer) and have to write comments about whatever book they've been reading.

So essentially all she does other than the 9-3 at school is 30 mins music practice a day, and the week's homework at weekends.

But, we tried to do music practice before school today and she got upset on the way to school because it hadn't gone well. I asked the head teacher if I could walk her to the classroom because she was upset and instead the HT swept her away into her own office and told me to leave it with her. Afterwards HT called to say she was concerned about DD's workload and thought she was doing too much for her age. there is a backstory here - 2 years ago, we made a complaint about a teacher at the school because we felt she just wasn't learning anything at all; she started off a really competent reader in reception/Y1 and then stayed at the same book level for two years without anyone batting an eyelid. She just stopped engaging in class.

Things have improved now and I really like her current teacher, and DD seems to be regained some of her enthusiasm for reading etc But I think the HT (who is VERY protective of her school and teachers) has just marked us out as pushy parents and therefore dismisses everything we say. I'm trying really hard not to be defensive about it, but I don't think we do push her too hard. We don't do anything above and beyond the homework that the school sets (which isn't very onerous) and she has a lot of time just mucking about with her sibling each day just making dens and whatnot.

To complicate things further, younger sibling keeps telling me she is bored at school e.g. the maths is really basic (they've got her writing numbers 1 to 100, which she could do in nursery). Lots of other parents in the same class have complained but I don't feel I can say anything because it'll just be another black mark against my name.

So, I guess I want to know what people think is reasonable for an 8-year-old to do?

My point is that if people understand people the Suzuki method, even if they don't want to use it themselves, they appreciate it's very effective. I've not done the Kodaly method but I respect it's effective at producing good musicians, even if it's not for me personally.

What does 'has qualifications in how to use Suzuki material' actually mean? Is she actually a fully trained, fully accredited Suzuki teacher? There are many teachers out there who dabble in a bit of Suzuki and then call themselves Suzuki teachers, when they're not. The very fact that she tells you 'purists' don't introduce reading until book 4 indicates she's not. It's totally incorrect, and starting reading at 9 is very late.

Equally there are some fully trained but nonetheless poor Suzuki teachers out there and it's very important to find a good one.

Hard work and repetition are what is involved in learning an instrument properly. It doesn't matter what method you learn, that's the only way. If you do an Eastern European you'll be doing Sevcik and Schradieck exercises until you're blue in the face - indeed the vast majority of violinists will do them at some point.

In Asia and Eastern Europe it's standard for children to start an instrument when they're very young. In the UK as a whole, this is not understood, and therefore seen as 'pushy parenting'.

"What does 'has qualifications in how to use Suzuki material' actually mean? Is she actually a fully trained, fully accredited Suzuki teacher? There are many teachers out there who dabble in a bit of Suzuki and then call themselves Suzuki teachers, when they're not. The very fact that she tells you 'purists' don't introduce reading until book 4 indicates she's not. It's totally incorrect, and starting reading at 9 is very late."

My daughter's teacher is Suzuki trained. Or at least the British Suzuki institute consider her to be Suzuki trained. I am happy with her teaching, my daughter is making good progress. My daughter is moviated and adores her teacher.

I don't think that leaving sight reading until nine years old Is that late. My son started guitar (with traditional teaching) as a first instrument at the age of nine and half. He learnt to read music quickly and easily. He passed grade 2 guitar in 18 months. Young children often aren't developmentally ready to learn to read music. An older child learns quickly.

I don't see the need to burden a young child with music reading and neither does Dd's violin teacher. Dd can play in tune and make an exceptable sound. She will learn to read music when she is older. Suzuki is supposed to be like learning the mother tongue. No one sane attempts to teach phonics to a toddler other than one or two crazed nutters off the gifted and talented board. Children learn to read music when they can play the instrument.

"The main concern for parents should be to bring up their children as noble human beings. That is sufficient. If this is not their greatest hope, in the end the child may take a road contrary to their expectations. Children can play very well. We must try to make them splendid in mind and heart also.

—Shinichi Suzuki"

Just catching up on the suzuki discussions. I certainly find that for many people who know nothing about the method (DC's HT included) it is just synonymous in their minds with pushy parenting (and there are often all sorts of cultural stereotypes wrapped up in that), and dismissed outright.

For me, some of the best things about suzuki are nothing to do with the 'discipline' – in particular the social side of it: children get to play in groups from the start, they make friends through their music lessons and they have a sense of belonging. I didn't learn via suzuki and had none of those things until much later, there just weren't many positive associations with music or lessons.

However I do think the following aspects are brilliant:

• the core principle that anyone can learn to be a good musician is a marvellous thing. Of course innate talent plays some part but the idea that no matter what your starting point you can work hard to be competent in a particular area is really liberating. (I get a bit frustrated with people who tell me 'oh I just want them to have fun with it and enjoy music - well of course ultimately that's what we all want for our kids but the idea that they can just pick up an instrument and 'have fun with it' is just absurd. They have to develop the skills to do that and practice is the only way that happens.
• the breaking down of seemingly insurmountable challenges into manageable, bitesize chunks. I think this is especially important for perfectionists - it's all too easy to give up when you feel you have little chance of doing something to the standard that you'd like to do it but if you can learn early in life to take things one step at a time and work methodically towards a goal, it's a really great skill to have and one that can be applied in all sorts of different areas.
• daily practice - whether it's 5 minutes or 30 mins. Some people may not agree but the 'little and often' philosophy really works for me (when I can stick to it!) and I do think positive habit forming is another useful tool we can give to our kids.

All the suzuki teachers I know introduce sightreading fairly early on. Mine have both done it from book 2 onwards. Of course there is the 'mother tongue' emphasis on listening to the pieces, but I don't think there's any reason why that shouldn't be compatible with sightreading (once the child is of an appropriate age that is…) So ReallyTired agree that introducing it too early is counter productive.

But I've heard the 'oh, they don't learn to sightread in suzuki' line countless times. I wonder whether it's also do with the fact that they learn the pieces by heart and people therefore assume it's because suzuki students can't read the music?!

Isn't the point here that all kids are different and all families unique. My sister has 3 kids under the age of 9. She often keeps them all together when they go out or do activities and they have a wonderful bond. I have one daughter, work full-time and have a husband who is back late every week night. Needless to say, when my daughter asked to do this and that, I accommodated her as far as possible. Now, in Y4, she has quite a full schedule of sports, music and foreign languages (we live abroad) and is happy. But I would accept it if she decided to ease off because she had too much going on. Flexibility and communication with your child are the most important, I feel. Obviously parents have their own biases - I was weaker at maths at school, so I give her extra maths to do- but as long as you're aware of this ...

I don't consider learning to read music a 'burden'.

The point about Suzuki is that you start when you're so young you can't read, and learning aurally and memorising pieces develops the ear and the memory. You learn pieces all the faster for 'knowing' the piece before you even start to study it.

With conventional teaching, children are learning to read and to play at the same time, which tends to detract from both.

However, that's not to say that reading skills shouldn't be taught early too.

I was among the first batch of children who learnt Suzuki back in the 70s. I started violin when I was 3 and piano when I was 5. I had lessons with Suzuki, with Madame Kataoka, with Bill Starr. I'm still good friends with a lot of Suzuki people a few of whom are professional, some of whom are teachers themselves. My children both do Suzuki violin and piano. My mother is herself a musician.

I can say with certainty that in all that time, we all learnt reading skills from early ages, as a separate but related skill. We learnt rhythmic patterns, time names, key signatures, tonic solfa etc. At summer camps and workshops there were always sight reading lessons. All of which made learning to read was quick and painless.

Personally, I think 9 is late to start because for what I was playing at age 10 - I needed to be able to read the music - Bach concertos, Vivialdi 4 seasons, Bartok dances, Monti Czardas - all which are too complex to learn purely by ear. Equally, I was playing in orchestras, for which reading is a necessity. One year would have been too short to get my reading skills up the required standard.

If you're happy with your teacher that's absolutely fine, that your daughter is happy and motivated is the main thing, but if you think no reading until the age of 9 is standard Suzuki it's not.

If the child is coping fine and enjoying it, then it's fine.

In my experience they soon let you know if an activity is becoming a chore, or they're too tired.

I had a really interesting chat with our teacher today. She was saying that she gets to sight reading when the children are a) able to read b) able to play pieces with great technique with their eyes shut and c) know the notes on the piano without thinking, and the same with the notes on paper (sorry - I'm not musical do don't know the terms). But she does learning the written notes with songs even before you start playing, as a skill alongside (in the musicality class). I think for us we will be just before book 2, or possibly just onto it. But my DD has great technique and is a very avid reader, and has taken her time through book 1. It feels like the right time/age for her.

Suzuki or not then learning music is hard and requires alot of practice if you want to progress and especially if your child wants to progress fast. I dont think whats the head teacher thinks outside school with homework finished and the child isnt in the bottom of the class is that important. In the end, they are our children and ultimately what we want them to be(and if they can be) is the most important.

My daughter is in yr3 and 8 yrs old and she does very well at school effortlessly. She however finds that music is so much harder and challenging. She has never worked so hard for anything else in her life(grade 3 piano and taking grade 3 violin in few weeks). The only way to get better is to practise, I could never imagine we have to practise anything 30mins a day for a 8 yrs old. Now I even think 30mins isnt good enough(although we havent quite get to 30mins solidly yet)

It sounds absolutely fine to me. My DD did a lot more than that (wider variety of activities and more time) at that age and was no problem. She's highly academic though so I've never had to worry about it impacting on school / learning time. She can skip through any homework in a very short time and easily gets it done.

My DD is now 11 and spends 13 hours per week training for one particular sport (competes at a national level), she also does flute practice every day (lessons within school time) 2 x hours per week minimum on a team sport with training and game, and homework.

She still has plenty of time for chilling, socialising (not as many after school playdates as she'd like!), watching TV, being bored, playing on Ipad, reading, etc. In fact I think she would be highly under stimulated with any less extra curriculur time!