Why do the same kids always get the main parts in school assemblies/plays?

[SomeEnchantedEvening]

What is the objective of putting on a class assembly? Why is it always the same children who get chosen for the main parts? Is it so that the teacher can show to his or her colleagues what a wonderful performance they can deliver so they play safe and choose the same children all the time? And why is it that there are 5 or 6 parts with loads of lines and the rest of the children have 1 or 2 lines if they're lucky? I know it's difficult to share parts out fairly - and teachers have more than enough on their plates anyway - it must surely be obvious to the teachers that they are choosing the same children again and again? I know some children will not want the main parts - but in my experience it's not that the slightly quieter children are approached and asked if they would like to be considered for a bigger part. My daughter practised so hard at home and the teachers told me she gave a really good audition - they could hear her at the back of the hall - and yet still she only got 1 line. I know this is a commonly expressed frustration and I just wondered if anyone's school operates a slightly fairer system or I just have to accept that this is the way of the world?? Thanks.

It's really tricky. My mum is the head of a smallish primary and always agonises over this kind of thing. On the one hand, it clearly isn't fair to give the same kids all the lines and solos year after year. However, taking a punt on someone unreliable can be really risky. About half the time it pays off and you end up with a delighted kid, mum proud as punch, everyone happy because the child was given a chance to shine and did.

The other 50% don't learn their lines in time, freeze up the minute the step on stage, or even point blank refuse to go in when the time comes. Cue child sobbing in the corridor outside the hall, parents furious that they have been humiliated, and the show slightly falling apart because the angel Gabriel never delivered the bloody baby.

All I'm saying is cut the teachers a bit of slack, it's not as simple as you may think.

Because it's easy to get a loud child to do it than encourage another out of their shell.

Imagine if the same was applied to the less able in maths, the less able get 5 minutes maths a day while the gifted do an hour. It's backwards thinking if you ask me.

Horses for courses.

In sport the coaches select the best team. It's no different, pick the DCs who are going to do it well without a lot of fuss and tears. Give other DCs small parts and look for future stars.

For dd's nativity play all the narrators (there were 26 of them!) could choose to wear "a related costume", "a party outfit", "own clothes" or school uniform.

Basically the teachers didn't care as long as the kids were happy and they didn't have to sort it! Dd wore an angel costume and was very happy.

They were scrupulously fair about every child getting a line or a dance or a song. There are 90 in her year. It was a very long performance!

Thanks for all your views. I know it's very difficult for the teachers – and there’s always the risk that the teacher will take a punt on a child and it won't work out but this can and does happen with the more confident children too – but some schools seem to work to achieve a fairer balance than others. I think it also happens that quieter children will get given fewer lines – and in my experience even have their lines cut – because the teacher knows they and their parents are less likely to complain.

I SO agree with these points:

As Lunar said, “Because it's easy to get a loud child to do it than encourage another out of their shell.

Imagine if the same was applied to the less able in maths, the less able get 5 minutes maths a day while the gifted do an hour. It's backwards thinking if you ask me.”

messy “Am I the only one in the world who thinks children are not fully formed when they enter primary school? It saddens me that children are labeled at such an early age. Obviously the more public speaking a child does, the better they will be. It's also about building confidence and giving those less able a little push rather than confining them to "not good enough". Of course more shy children would never volunteer - but that's not to say they couldn't do a great job, but might have to work harder for it.”

I go back to my first point – what are school assemblies trying to achieve? It seems to be the case that if the teachers put on a great show with the same children, year after year, the teachers are happy because the Headteacher will say “It’s like watching a show in the West End.” I think most parents don’t care if the performance isn’t an award winning one. They just want to see their child have a fair chance to deliver more than 1 line and I wonder if teachers are aware of how frustrating it is for parents and children to constantly feel demoralised by being marginalised. It’s also not fair on the more confident children who are sometimes given too many lines. I know teachers often work with pre-written texts but maybe they could have 2 children share a main part in 1 performance? It’s interesting and encouraging that some schools seem to have put more thought into this so it suggests that it doesn’t have to be a case of this is the way things are and you just have to put up with it.

hairspray I think it used to be like that, I was always narrator at school too as I had a photographic memory and learned all my lines and everyone else's within a day or two but now everyone who doesn't have a part gets one or two lines as "narrator".

This went on all the time in my DDs' primary school. Sometimes they had a part, sometimes they didn't. It was always the same children getting the main parts, and being on stage for the majority of the show. Many children didn't get a line at all. They seemed to pick a few to be in the actual play, and at least half the class would have no part to play apart from singing the songs. They would all be dressed in dark trousers and red tops, and sat at the edge of the stage for the whole performance. They used to rehearse this from October, so these children who didn't have parts would spend hours each week just watching the others rehearse.

My elder DD was very academic and a brilliant reader, but quite quiet. She always longed for a part, just a small one, she didn't want the main role, but she rarely got one. She really wanted to be a narrator! I felt that the teachers should have encouraged the less confident children as well as the very confident ones.

My younger DD was luckier, as there were only eight girls in her class, and lots of boys, so the girls always seemed to get a part.

To be fair, there were one or two teachers who made sure everyone in their class took part, but most didn't.

When I go to watch a show, I want to see all the children I know doing a little bit and taking part. I don't want to see two or three confident children doing the whole show themselves.

I am sure that in our case this has been done to make things as easy as possible for the teachers. I certainly have seen it happen - hasn't affected my son too much, always gets one line, but he is a child who learns everything and is hugely enthusiastic. It has made me feel really disappointed for him

*Because it's easy to get a loud child to do it than encourage another out of their shell.

Imagine if the same was applied to the less able in maths, the less able get 5 minutes maths a day while the gifted do an hour. It's backwards thinking if you ask me.*

I entirely agree with this. I was always a very academic but relatively unconfident child. I really wanted to be in the school plays/assemblies etc but was always given a non-speaking (eg one of ten sheep) part or at most one line. I clearly would have learned my lines and put plenty of effort in but I felt that teachers always picked the loud children. The one negative comment on my school reports throughout school was that I was a bit too quiet. As an adult I really think that a good teacher would have seen school assemblies etc as an opportunity to help me work on this. Just the same as a child who struggled with maths would have extra effort put in to helping them with this.

I know that teachers are busy and these extra things must be a headache but I do think that assemblies in particular would be better used as a teaching experience (ie- helping children improve confidence, to work on speaking skills etc) than as a 'showcase' of talent in the class with the quiet or less able children hidden at the back.

(As an aside I went on to have a job that involved lots of public speaking and was taught how to do it properly).

At DDs school for years the music teacher's children always got the main parts in the school plays. Even though she helped with rehearsals and had a hand in allocating parts no-one was supposed to see this as favouritism.

I work in reception, we pick the children who want to do it and don't cry when we first go in the hall. There are usually around 6 out of a cohort of 60 who fit the bill but way more parts than this so we then work on encouraging others to have a go. Christmas nativity is the bane of ours and the children's lives next term and we could be doing so much more fun activities if we didn't have to keep practising it every week in the run up.

Its always the ptas children who get everything here there on the school website the literature head boy and girl stars of the play etc etc then there are the kids with behaviour problems my so who is a little shy but loud and clear on stage does not get a look in

Not every child wants to have a leading part, you know. If DD and a few in her class were forced to be the leads they would get pretty distressed and would probably corpse on the day. And the children who would enjoy being front and centre would miss out. Which all sounds pretty lose/lose to me.

RiverTam - I think most parents in my situation are not looking for their child to get the main part, just a few lines would be good and to try to ensure that the play doesn't have 5 or 6 parts which dominate and leave very little material for the other children to say.

Mistoffeles - thanks for your post. It's good to hear a teacher's perspective and I know it must be a nightmare for you when you have more than enough to be doing. However, it just brings me back to what is the objective of an assembly? So much time and effort goes in to what effect for the majority of the children in the class.

I totally agree with you chunkymum I know that teachers are busy and these extra things must be a headache but I do think that assemblies in particular would be better used as a teaching experience (ie- helping children improve confidence, to work on speaking skills etc) than as a 'showcase' of talent in the class with the quiet or less able children hidden at the back." Great to hear that you went on to do a job where you were taught to speak in public - a great reminder that it is a skill which can be taught.

When she was in primary DD always auditioned for the good parts but always ended up with just a line if she was lucky, while the usual performers got the top parts until...
The new head made it a raffle, all different dc got good parts and one year DD got the starring role.
Much more fair and did her confidence a big favour.
I don't agree that some dc are good at drama and should get all the best parts. How do you know others aren't good if they never get the chance?

To please the parents basically, the majority of the children get little to nothing from it at our end of school. If the school's aim was to encourage drama and public speaking they would put more effort into starting clubs for these type of activities.

Mistoffeles Which is ironic as the majority of the parents are not pleased . I have never approached a teacher to complain that my dc don't have enough lines. Do many parents or children say anything?

Rebel sounds like a brilliant idea! Did it sometimes mean that children were given main parts when they didn't want them?

One year, I got to the end of my tether and finally snapped and said something. My dd was peed off with the major one-word part (in Y3) and I was peed off with the same precocious hyperconfident brats kids being picked over and over again.
I spoke to her Y4 teacher at the beginning of the year and said that OK, dd didn't actually appear to be one of the 'pick me' confident ones, but she actually did want the chance to prove what she could do for a change.
The teacher came up trumps, threw her in at the deep end and gave her a decent bit to do, thankfully.

The quiet ones need to be given a chance, as otherwise they will end up believing that they didn't get picked because they weren't good enough.

No because only the dc that wanted to, entered the raffle. Also if you won a main part you automatically missed the raffle for the next play.

Glad to hear your positive experience dodo.

Rebel - what a fabulous headteacher you seem to have

It's so annoying. It's got to the point where dd1, who when given the nod in the last has been great at public speaking etc, doesn't even bother to volunteer anymore as she says she will never be picked.
It's sad because it's something she has been good at but doesn't see it totally herself-she needs to be given the chance and a bit of encouragement-instead the same two kids are picked for everything and no else even bothers anymore, because what's the point?
Also how much of a disaster is it if they school pay doesn't go totally to plan? Surely no one is expecting west end quality? So if one of the less confident kids is picked and doesn't do it to judy garland standards-what's the big deal? If it's handled with good grace as it should be then they will still have had their confidence boosted which is what they so badly need.
The sports is slightly different-of course the coach will pick the best team. But the issue at our school is that there are say 4 amazing kids, and the rest are good but not as good-and they just don't get developed because all the focus is on the four great ones.so how are the ones with potential meant to get any better?

I think the sports analogy is better than the maths one, singing, dancing, acting etc. Are all talents, we can't all be Olympians and Oscar winners no matter how hard we try.

Should the school cross country team or swimming team have the weakest runners and swimmer just because they are "trying"? I would imagine if anything that would make a child feel worse not better.

Maybe if you taught your kids to stand up and ask for a decent role then you wouldn't be forced to wade in and "fix" the situation. If your kid is desperate for a starring role they need to let the teacher know, they aren't mind readers and often quiet and well behaved are synonyms for shy.

At dd's school they all have a part during school assemblies (one per term) - sometimes a large role and sometimes small so everyone has the opportunity to perform in front of an audience. For school plays the younger children all have singing or supporting roles and when you get to year 5 you can audition for a main part - this all seems pretty fair to me.
Dd had a main role this year, but last time was when she was in year 2 for the key stage one production.
I have seen children make great progress under this system. Some who spoke very little English are now very confident performers.

This is one of my biggest bugbears so forgive the long rant which is to follow. DS is in year 5 now and has only had the odd 1 liner in his whole school career whilst there are about 10 - 15 children (out of a year of 60) who have constantly have main roles. These are the 'favoured ones' who are often also on top table, win all the prizes etc. I'm sick of it and what is worse so is DS!

In fact us parents joke now that we might as well just write a list of who will get the main parts it's so flipping predictable.

As to the role of a school play. Well I feel that it should be an opportunity for children to explore and enjoy drama, a chance to work together as a team to create something, an opportunity to build your confidence by public speaking and performing in front of an audience and a time when children can be gently moved out of their comfort zone to try something that they may not often get the chance to do.

What a school play actually seems to be however is an opportunity for the teachers and school to show off how great and flawless their play is, a chance for the confident children to get more confident and for the not so confident to have the fact they are not good at anything hammered home to them. For those without a role it's pretty demotivating and uninspiriing.

I don't know any parents who are happy with the way our school does it's play. I've heard from parents of children with main roles that they have too many lines to learn and get stressed and the teachers really put a lot of pressure on them. And then you get parents who are unhappy that their children don't have any lines and are consistently third villager from the right or eleventh cow.

I know some children are shy and obviously some parts necessitate more lines than others but I do think teachers could apportion it out far more equally than they do (i.e. max of say 6 lines min of 2 lines per role) and tbh by about year 2/3 I know very few children who would not be capable of saying a couple of lines. And you know what, even if they get it wrong or need a teacher to help them along it really doesn't matter does it? It's a bloody school play not Judi Dench and Benedict Cumberbatch at the RSC!!!!!

What also winds me up is the sheer amount of time they spend rehearsing which for about 70% of the year group is simply sitting around on the stage watching the chosen ones and twiddling their thumbs - how is that in any way beneficial?

I did say something to the teacher last year after poor DS was rejected after audition once again and he got given a cursory 2 words to say - too little too late.

I've just come to the conclusion that the teachers would far rather do whatever makes their lives easier than have to put a bit of effort in but make the play fairer.

And for those who say 'life isn't fair' - yep that's true and most children are aware of that fairly early on in life. I'm not sure it's really an objective of primary education to entrench this view is it??

Beautifully put beanbag "And for those who say 'life isn't fair' - yep that's true and most children are aware of that fairly early on in life. I'm not sure it's really an objective of primary education to entrench this view is it??"

I think the sports analogy is better than the maths one, singing, dancing, acting etc. Are all talents, we can't all be Olympians and Oscar winners no matter how hard we try.

The sports analogy being that the children who are most talented at sports are picked for the school team. But all children take part in sports in school during school time and all are given equal roles ( it's not just the most talented that have a game of football etc). When the school team are playing the rest of the pupils are not required to sit around in their sports kit in front of all the parents and occasionally given a ball to hold.

Most primary schools do not teach drama/public speaking etc other than in relation to class assemblies/school plays and so unless children take part in drama clubs outside school this is their only chance to have a go. Plus in my experience all children are required to take part in the school play but those with lesser parts can feel left out/foolish. The same can be said for class assemblies for which I think there is even less excuse for not giving the less confident children a turn.

My DD was in school choir in her last year at primary school and the new (young and I'm sure some would say slightly naive) teacher running this had a policy that anyone who was prepared to come to rehearsals regularly could join and anyone who wanted to sing a solo would be given a chance. Lots of pupils that no-one would have expected to be able to do this did and the effect on their confidence was clear.