We were expecting to close this blog on 6th May 2010, along with the election, but, since the election hasn't ended yet, neither will the blog. May as well add a few points!
The trouble is, in the state sector music and art have been downgraded from mainstream subjects to peripheral frivolities, because they are so expensive and time-consuming. But it's also a question of demand - especially from parents who want their children to have a "good" (ie well-paid) career. When I visited the "best" (ie selective) state school in our area, I was appalled to see that the leaving destinations of something like 60 per cent of the kids was to study Business Studies. There were some doing medicine and law, or things like geography. Very few were doing subjects such as English or history. Not one, as far as I can see, was going to art school or music college. Indeed, when I told someone recently my children were studying art and music, they actually said: "Oh poor you!"
Your last remark - about people saying 'poor you' when you said your children are studying music and art really shocked me. I think I realised people don't always value art as a subject but have also imagined people admire those with musical ability even though instrumental careers may not be well paid.
I'm no longer sure I framed this point properly. I've been thinking about the state secondary schools in our area. Of the five, there is one I know little about in the music line but two of the others have good orchestras / bands and two don't. If two can, why not the others?
Money and time may have something to do with it but my thought is that expectations and organisation and what things are valued in which schools play an even bigger part. It's terribly hit and miss and the non-musical, non-artistic schools are letting children down in a really serious way.
2 comments:
The trouble is, in the state sector music and art have been downgraded from mainstream subjects to peripheral frivolities, because they are so expensive and time-consuming.
But it's also a question of demand - especially from parents who want their children to have a "good" (ie well-paid) career. When I visited the "best" (ie selective) state school in our area, I was appalled to see that the leaving destinations of something like 60 per cent of the kids was to study Business Studies.
There were some doing medicine and law, or things like geography. Very few were doing subjects such as English or history. Not one, as far as I can see, was going to art school or music college.
Indeed, when I told someone recently my children were studying art and music, they actually said: "Oh poor you!"
Your last remark - about people saying 'poor you' when you said your children are studying music and art really shocked me. I think I realised people don't always value art as a subject but have also imagined people admire those with musical ability even though instrumental careers may not be well paid.
I'm no longer sure I framed this point properly. I've been thinking about the state secondary schools in our area. Of the five, there is one I know little about in the music line but two of the others have good orchestras / bands and two don't. If two can, why not the others?
Money and time may have something to do with it but my thought is that expectations and organisation and what things are valued in which schools play an even bigger part. It's terribly hit and miss and the non-musical, non-artistic schools are letting children down in a really serious way.
Post a Comment