People who don't want to play an instrument? Options

[Tenor Viol]

I think that many people are convinced that they are not musical by others around them. I know many adults who have been told in the past that they cannot sing/play etc. This may have been due to family circumstances (not enough money/no opportunity/a "class" thing), or by some careless word from an adult - whether it's a parent, or teacher. And therefore they do not want to go and make an exhibition of themselves trying to play something.

I'm afraid there is a common perception that one is either 'musicall' or 'not musical' - that music is a God-given gift one either has or doesn't have. A few years ago I went to talk to about 160 parents at a small private primary which was taking on Kodaly work.. I asked them how many thought that they were musical and only abut half put their hands up. I asked those who hadn't put their hands up why they thought they weren't musical. Their answers were all the same - 'I can't sing' or 'I don't play an instrument.'. I said, 'You do realise that neither of those things mean that you're not musical? It just means that you haven't been taught how.'

I was faced with a room full of blank and puzzled faces - this was clearly a new concept to them...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) I have made that point to colleagues at work more than once who say "I can't sing"

[notmusimum]

I think that many people are convinced that they are not musical by others around them. I know many adults who have been told in the past that they cannot sing/play etc. This may have been due to family circumstances (not enough money/no opportunity/a "class" thing), or by some careless word from an adult - whether it's a parent, or teacher. And therefore they do not want to go and make an exhibition of themselves trying to play something.

I'm afraid there is a common perception that one is either 'musicall' or 'not musical' - that music is a God-given gift one either has or doesn't have. A few years ago I went to talk to about 160 parents at a small private primary which was taking on Kodaly work.. I asked them how many thought that they were musical and only abut half put their hands up. I asked those who hadn't put their hands up why they thought they weren't musical. Their answers were all the same - 'I can't sing' or 'I don't play an instrument.'. I said, 'You do realise that neither of those things mean that you're not musical? It just means that you haven't been taught how.'

I was faced with a room full of blank and puzzled faces - this was clearly a new concept to them...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) I have made that point to colleagues at work more than once who say "I can't sing"

I would certainly have been one of the parents who thought they weren't musical. Supporting daughter has taught me it is possible to be musical without learning an instrument or being able to sing. I can often hear when things are out of tune even if I couldn't say whether they were sharp or flat amungst other things. I can totally see what you are saying Cyrilla.

[mel2]

Situations (streaming, competitive sports, exams etc etc) are set up which are going to highlight comparisons, but in my school at least, nothing was ever said to the kids in the bottom sets to help them cope with the feelings of "failure" which they surely had. By age 11, they would already have been acutely aware that they were "losing" - do they really need another 5 years of reinforcement? I think they should be valued for who they are first, and what they achieve second - it's a cruel world but there's not point in making it any worse!

Well said.

[VH2]

Children who excel at sport may be weak in other subjects, so should we suppress their natural abilities to level the playing field for those who are better at Maths, English, Music, Languages or nothing at all?

Interesting.

When I taught in schools i met very few children that were good at sports but struggled academically, but they were the exceptions.

Usually the children that excelled academically were also the best footballers, hockey players, runners, cricketers, swimmers, etc.

[Tixylix]

Children who excel at sport may be weak in other subjects, so should we suppress their natural abilities to level the playing field for those who are better at Maths, English, Music, Languages or nothing at all?

Interesting.

When I taught in schools i met very few children that were good at sports but struggled academically, but they were the exceptions.

Usually the children that excelled academically were also the best footballers, hockey players, runners, cricketers, swimmers, etc.

In my school the kids who excelled academically were all in the PE group that weren't allowed real javelins or discuses (we had oversized Nerf darts and rubber circle things) or anywhere near the hurdles. The head of PE made it quite clear that she despised those who were not performing at competition level, or even those who could be but decided not to for whatever reason, including a couple who basically chose music over sport.

I'm definitely in favour of competition, but it is possible to be competitive without going out of your way to make those who are at the bottom feel like dirt. If anything my personal experience is that to excel at anything which isn't sport is not socially acceptable, you were more likely to be mocked by other kids for being at the top of the class than the bottom. Is this widespread or was I just unlucky?

[Norway]

Sorry to hear about your school experience Tixylix - there are people in teaching who should never be allowed near children!

I think that bright kids (especially boys) get mocked precisely because the system is competitive. Less bright pupils are locked into a system in which they can't win. They feel inadequate and so find another way of getting even. They are often told that if they work harder they will come out on top, which isn't necessarily true. I was fortunate enough to be one of the brighter kids, but tried endlessly to understand long division and never could do it. I dread to think how those children felt who didn't have a talent in any area.

[Cyrilla]

I think the 'I'm rubbish at sport' is similar to 'I can't sing' or 'I can't draw'...

Of course there are varying degrees of natural aptitude, but my belief is that education should be about the development of the individual to that person's highest possible level - and about building confidence and self-esteem.

If one has gone through the various stages of education feeling that 'I'm rubbish at xxx' then both the teacher, the teaching and the education system in general is at fault. If a teacher has succeeded in helping an individual to feel good about themselves in a subject for which they do not have a huge aptitude, then to my mind that is the greatest achievement.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/soapbox.gif)

[Tenor Viol]

I think the 'I'm rubbish at sport' is similar to 'I can't sing' or 'I can't draw'...

Of course there are varying degrees of natural aptitude, but my belief is that education should be about the development of the individual to that person's highest possible level - and about building confidence and self-esteem.

If one has gone through the various stages of education feeling that 'I'm rubbish at xxx' then both the teacher, the teaching and the education system in general is at fault. If a teacher has succeeded in helping an individual to feel good about themselves in a subject for which they do not have a huge aptitude, then to my mind that is the greatest achievement.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/soapbox.gif)

I'll take over the soap box (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I grew up in a well-known football-mad city. I went to a grammar school and unusually, we were a football rather than a rugby/hockey school. The school was good at football (one well-known England player was a year or so above me).

Problem: I don't like football, I don't want to play it, I don't watch it. Football is compulsory and in the 1970s little alternative (until I was in 4th form). I learnt to hate sport at school by being forced to do something I really didn't want to do.

Because I didn't play football, ergo I was useless at all sport. So class-mates assumed I was useless at all sports as did teachers, more-or-less.

Actually, I was interested in cricket and I would have been a decent left-arm spin bowler (I can spin it both ways) had anyone bothered to find out. I found out in my 20s I was a competent long-distance runner (hate anything under 3 miles - good over the 4 - 7 mile distances - don't run now because of series of injuries when I was about 40).

When I got to 4th form we finally had a choice and I was able to do swimming, basketball, volleyball etc and I was at least able to get by on those.

I was made to feel rubbish and inadequate because I didn't play a sport I wasn't interested in. The school was focused on football since it regularly produced high-profile professional players. Had people bothered to make a proper assessment, I might have turned into a decent cross-country / long distance runner. Instead, I grew up hating sport and actively avoided anything to do with it until I was in my mid/late 20s, when I took up hill-walking, running and skiing.

Soap box baton passed on....

[Swell Box]

Children who excel at sport may be weak in other subjects, so should we suppress their natural abilities to level the playing field for those who are better at Maths, English, Music, Languages or nothing at all?

Interesting.

When I taught in schools i met very few children that were good at sports but struggled academically, but they were the exceptions.

Usually the children that excelled academically were also the best footballers, hockey players, runners, cricketers, swimmers, etc.

In my school the kids who excelled academically were all in the PE group that weren't allowed real javelins or discuses (we had oversized Nerf darts and rubber circle things) or anywhere near the hurdles. The head of PE made it quite clear that she despised those who were not performing at competition level, or even those who could be but decided not to for whatever reason, including a couple who basically chose music over sport.

I'm definitely in favour of competition, but it is possible to be competitive without going out of your way to make those who are at the bottom feel like dirt. If anything my personal experience is that to excel at anything which isn't sport is not socially acceptable, you were more likely to be mocked by other kids for being at the top of the class than the bottom. Is this widespread or was I just unlucky?

Mockery of those who excel in subjects other than sport is widespread, and it's not just the children; it's the teachers too!

In my experience, those who are poor academically are encouraged to do well in sport because it is 'inclusive', and you don't have to be good at maths or science to take part.

Children who excel in academic subjects, but don't like sport are often seen as 'nerds' or 'anoraks', and can be given a pretty hard time by their peers, and by some teachers.

Our son had a torrid time in GCSE music; not so much because of his musical ability, but because the Head of Music didn't approve of what he was playing or where he was playing it, and at one point refused to let him take his GCSE Music Performance exam (as this meant playing on our local church organ). Her attitude was that other candidates had either played the school piano or brought an instrument into school. She told us that it was unfair on other pupils who hadn't had the benefit of private tuition for her to be absent from school for two hours so that our son could take his exam on a pipe organ, and was obstructive from the outset. She also refused to let him retake his performance exam following the mock before Christmas as she didn't think that "most pupils" would have progressed far in that time.

The HoM also had issues with his ensemble piece, (Gabriel Faure's Pie Jesu), as this was sung in Latin, which she felt had no place in a Secondary Modern.

So, I would agree with Norway that "schools should be aiming to encourage each child to realise their potential in their own way"; but that should include all children, not just those who fullfil certan critera for improvement targets. It is not the job of school teachers to level the playing field to fulfil their own political ideologies; and neither is it their job to suppress pupils whose interests fall outside of the mainstream.

Sorry for the rant, but we feel very badly let down by 'the system' over this.

SB

[Tenor Viol]

Children who excel at sport may be weak in other subjects, so should we suppress their natural abilities to level the playing field for those who are better at Maths, English, Music, Languages or nothing at all?

Interesting.

When I taught in schools i met very few children that were good at sports but struggled academically, but they were the exceptions.

Usually the children that excelled academically were also the best footballers, hockey players, runners, cricketers, swimmers, etc.

In my school the kids who excelled academically were all in the PE group that weren't allowed real javelins or discuses (we had oversized Nerf darts and rubber circle things) or anywhere near the hurdles. The head of PE made it quite clear that she despised those who were not performing at competition level, or even those who could be but decided not to for whatever reason, including a couple who basically chose music over sport.

I'm definitely in favour of competition, but it is possible to be competitive without going out of your way to make those who are at the bottom feel like dirt. If anything my personal experience is that to excel at anything which isn't sport is not socially acceptable, you were more likely to be mocked by other kids for being at the top of the class than the bottom. Is this widespread or was I just unlucky?

Mockery of those who excel in subjects other than sport is widespread, and it's not just the children; it's the teachers too!

In my experience, those who are poor academically are encouraged to do well in sport because it is 'inclusive', and you don't have to be good at maths or science to take part.

Children who excel in academic subjects, but don't like sport are often seen as 'nerds' or 'anoraks', and can be given a pretty hard time by their peers, and by some teachers.

Our son had a torrid time in GCSE music; not so much because of his musical ability, but because the Head of Music didn't approve of what he was playing or where he was playing it, and at one point refused to let him take his GCSE Music Performance exam (as this meant playing on our local church organ). Her attitude was that other candidates had either played the school piano or brought an instrument into school. She told us that it was unfair on other pupils who hadn't had the benefit of private tuition for her to be absent from school for two hours so that our son could take his exam on a pipe organ, and was obstructive from the outset. She also refused to let him retake his performance exam following the mock before Christmas as she didn't think that "most pupils" would have progressed far in that time.

The HoM also had issues with his ensemble piece, (Gabriel Faure's Pie Jesu), as this was sung in Latin, which she felt had no place in a Secondary Modern.

So, I would agree with Norway that "schools should be aiming to encourage each child to realise their potential in their own way"; but that should include all children, not just those who fullfil certan critera for improvement targets. It is not the job of school teachers to level the playing field to fulfil their own political ideologies; and neither is it their job to suppress pupils whose interests fall outside of the mainstream.

Sorry for the rant, but we feel very badly let down by 'the system' over this.

SB

That's terrible - it demonstrates unbelievable ignorance. Unfortunately, there are teachers who should not be allowed near youngsters and this seems to be one of them.

[Arundodonuts]

I was made to feel rubbish and inadequate because I didn't play a sport I wasn't interested in. The school was focused on football since it regularly produced high-profile professional players. Had people bothered to make a proper assessment, I might have turned into a decent cross-country / long distance runner. Instead, I grew up hating sport and actively avoided anything to do with it until I was in my mid/late 20s, when I took up hill-walking, running and skiing.

Soap box baton passed on....

Which I shall pick up.......

My story is similar. Sport at grammar school was initially rugby. Once I had learned that my job as a tiny boy was to get the ball into the scrum and away from the scrum then walk away until the next scrum, I didn't mind it too much. Then some fool decided we should be playing football instead (I suppose it was seen as more socially inclusive or some similar claptrap). I hated it. Though curiously only as an organised competitive sport. I was quite happy to have a kick around in the playground - but that was just for fun. At home I used to run around like a mad thing with my mates, or pedal my bike as fast as I could manage.

School sport eventually completely fell of my radar with one tiny ray of light - in the 5th form we got to have a go at hockey which I quite enjoyed. Generally though I managed to skive off games with the excuse that my metalwork project was taking up a lot of time. Suited me, suited the games teacher.

He would have been either pleased, amused or bemused to see me in my young adult life hill walking, rock climbing, skiing, cycling, even now and then fell running. But I do it for the enjoyment of it, not competiton. Personally I think that is the crux of the matter. I have nothing against competition but it shouldn't be the reason behind taking up an activity. Pleasure should come first, which in athletic sport is the pleasure of movement. That's where I think the emphasis should be. Get kids running around having fun. The desire to compete may then come to some.

A bit like learning to play an instrument. See how I skilfully got that back on topic (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[VH2]

If anything my personal experience is that to excel at anything which isn't sport is not socially acceptable, you were more likely to be mocked by other kids for being at the top of the class than the bottom. Is this widespread or was I just unlucky?

It is widespread. Because it is (much) easier to make jibes at those who excel, and try to drag them back to the general level of mediocrity, than it is to make the effort to attain excellence.

[Norway]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) Arundodonuts - According to my PE report I "Lacked coordination (Piano teacher?!!!!!) and enthusiasm". They would never have imagined that a few years later I was cycling solo from Land's End to John O'Groats and loving every minute of it!

Sorry to hear about your son's experience Swell Box - I was excluded from school music concerts because I had private lessons - they only wanted kids who had peri lessons at the school. There are some very warped attitudes out there - I'd definitely urge parents to challenge these decisions otherwise these teachers will just carry on getting away with it.

[Swell Box]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) Arundodonuts - According to my PE report I "Lacked coordination (Piano teacher?!!!!!) and enthusiasm". They would never have imagined that a few years later I was cycling solo from Land's End to John O'Groats and loving every minute of it!

Sorry to hear about your son's experience Swell Box - I was excluded from school music concerts because I had private lessons - they only wanted kids who had peri lessons at the school. There are some very warped attitudes out there - I'd definitely urge parents to challenge these decisions otherwise these teachers will just carry on getting away with it.

Norway; I am very interested to hear of your experience, and that you were excluded from school concerts because you had received private tuition, as this is all very familiar to us.

I suspect that a lot of our son's problems arose from a clash of cultures and political ideologies. Our son's Organ Tutor is a retired music teacher who spent many years teaching at a well known public school; although she had worked at an inner city state comprehensive before that, and was a cathedral organist before that; so she has very broad experience of teaching.

It was practice at the public school where son's Organ Tutor formerly taught that GCSE music exam candidates were encouraged to re-take their music performance exams right up to the submission deadline in order to score the best possible exam results. I think the very fact that she had taught in a public school also resulted in certain (entirely false and misguided) assumptions and attitudes being formed by the HoM at our son's school.

The HoM at son's school, in stark contrast, took the attitude that she had far too many exam candidates and too little time to allow them more than one go at the performance exam. Indeed, in several cases, she expected to get away with only allowing the 'mock' exam before Christmas, even though it should have been obvious to any secondary school teacher that a motivated teenager can learn a heck of a lot in six months.

Whatever her motives, she certainly didn't see why she should put herself out for a candidate who was receiving private tuition from a former public school teacher, and was accompanying singing in Latin!

There was also the (entirely false) assumption that the HoM in a public school would only have a handful of highly motivated pupils to mark for, that time and budgets were unlimited, that there would be any number of minions to do marking and other menial tasks, and that teachers would be paid at least ten times as much as she was!

My view is that music teachers are employed by the LEA to teach music. They are not employed to level playing fields; they are not employed to impart their brand of politics on impressionable pupils; and they are certainly not employed to select which pupils should be encouraged, and which should be suppressed according to their own warped political ideologies. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

SB

[GMc]

Although I went to a highly competetive selective entry school there was no unpleasantness about being in bottom sets and classes. Within the house boarding system the more able spent a lot of time helping the less so and coaching them. And those bottom sets would have been top sets in less selective place. We did every sport imaginable and you couldnt get out of it but once at the fields you could have a long chat with the less sporty most of the time. If you did have a talent they would have found it eventually.

I actually played county hockey so was fairly skilled. Early on at this school however we went for a walk as it was too icy to play anything. I fell over and broke my arm badly so had to watch all the rest of term sport from sidelines. My report said that I lacked talent and enthusiasm!! My mother sent it to the head with a note saying that the teacher had presumably mixed me up with someone else and she sent back an apology. I got much better reports after that in sport funnily enough.