|
|
Post by princessmoose on Jan 16, 2007 20:48:15 GMT
Anyone considered this? I'm already stressing about only 7 pupils this session doing exams, who all seem equally incompetent. I was thinking earlier that perhaps I just completely ignore the music exam system for my pupils and just let them learn pieces at their own pace. Some have hinted at wanting to take music further, and if that is the case then I'll perhaps have to consider letting a few of them do the exams, or any really high flyers, though I have none at the moment. I just dread the day I have even more pupils entered, and all the accompaniments to learn and the stress of worrying about them failing because they choose to ignore everything I say.
Argh.
Rant over.
|
|
|
|
Post by chocolatedog on Jan 16, 2007 23:11:50 GMT
Some of my pupils don't do exams at all and are quite happy without. I tend to ask at the beginning of each term whether they want to and the answer is usually 'no'. Others decide not to, and then maybe a year or so later think they would actually like to do an exam, so I'll prepare them for it. Others opt to do exams whenever ready.......it's up to the individual pupil and I'm certainly happier generally I think when I don't have the pressure of looming exam dates......!
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on Jan 16, 2007 23:18:25 GMT
Hmmmm. It took me 30 years to get where you appear to have arrived after a few months teaching. Am I really slow or are you supremely quick? My disillusionment with exams can be summed up thus: the various boards seem so concerned with ensuring that exam repertoire demonstrates command of a set criteria of skills, that they forget that kids actually need to enjoy playing it if they are to practise it properly. Granted, in my musical terms the repertoire my kids study these days is rubbish. It is at least rubbish they enjoy playing. They delight in the stuff composed by Wedgewood, Cornick, Bonsor, Mier et al. Come exam time, most of the rep offered is equally rubbishy, but composed during the 18th\19th centuries - Benda, Clementi, Fibbich, Rathgerber, Kirnberger and a whole host of others who sound as though they should be ordered with chips at McDonalds. Utter drivel all of it, and I am sick of trying to get kids to practise it just because it is set for an exam. All that before I get started on the so-called 'supporting tests' ;D I have not withdrawn either my pupils or myself from the exam system, as such. To do so would deny my students opportunities to develop that they might want to grasp. I tell those experienced at taking these things that they are ready to take the next graded exam and to let me know when\if they want to take it. I leave it up to them to take an exam, or not. Those kids who have not yet taken any exams I leave alone. I already know which ones will take grade 1; either they or their parents have already talked taking it. My life is a lot easier because I have adopted this approach. Many of my lessons are a lot more enjoyable than they would otherwise have been.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dulciana on Jan 17, 2007 1:38:53 GMT
After my last experience, I'm certainly going to have less qualms about saying no to exams - it's not worth the stress if they really aren't up to it - but I'm not against exams per se. Most of my lot are keen to do them; they like the sense of achievement, and I'm happy to use whatever board has pieces that suit them at the time. Though I have to say that I'm least keen on AB because they all hate the scales (as do I; it's really boring having to go over them all for a third of a lesson, and I don't think there's enough to be gained from them to warrant that.) What I'm going to do in future is go with what they like from whatever syllabus, and if they seem to be spending an undue length of time on a piece, we'll just change it - and if we never get as far as entering, then that's fine! I always throw other stuff in for concerts anyway to avoid them only playing exam pieces. I'm a bit bogged off at the minute with my TG Grade 6's; they can play the pieces, but we're holding back because of the time I'm having to spend on the other parts of the exam. This 'rounded musician' idea is actually holding them back! I'm loathe to give them too much else to do in case the exam pieces slip, but since they really do want to do the exam I can't just say, "Let's forget these pieces."
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on Jan 17, 2007 6:25:31 GMT
This 'rounded musician' idea is actually holding them back! Hehe. Different issue to that of the actual thread, but it is my utter contempt for this that made me so unpopular in some circles in TOP ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jod on Jan 17, 2007 10:00:45 GMT
Well this term I have four students doing exams.
I have plenty of pupils who don't do exams. I've just found that thats the sort of thing that children want to do.
It's good to have a performance opportunity and a gold-standard to aim at. But as I've said before the exam system should not be treated as a steeplechase. Jump the fences in order and get to the finsihing line. I view it as a method of getting someone else to give a crit on my pupils work.
For some of them music festivals are more effective.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerioboe on Jan 17, 2007 19:27:26 GMT
In France there is no exam system. In the music schools, until about ten years ago, there was an internal exam organised at the end of every year. If you failed you could repeat the year once, if you failed a second time you were thrown out. They decided to reform this system as it meant that there were few good pupils around as sooner or later they failed a year and, since they could play quite well usually decided they would just play for pleasure at home without the stress.
There was therefore a big reform. They have divided things up into three cycles which take an average of four years (you can do it in three years if you're good, five if you're a slow learner) and there is an exam at the end of the cycle. The exam consists of playing two contrasted pieces before the head of the music school and a teacher of your instrument from a different music school. There are no scales, no aural and no sight-reading. Critics argue that as there is no established list of pieces levels vary hugely between different music schools depending on how keen they are to keep their pupils.
For me the only disadvantage of this is that lesson times are linked to what cycle you're in. You get 30 minutes in the first cycle, 45 minutes in the second and 60 minutes in the third. I have no desire to put myself through this system (and anyway have only just notched up three years on the oboe) and so theoretically am only entitled to 30 minutes. I have, however reached a level where I (and my teacher) would like 45. Because I am the first pupil of the day he told me to arrive 15 minutes earlier but this is completely unofficial and often get interrupted by other teachers and the head saying "oh have you started early."
As far as my daughter is concerned, I am starting to think that maybe the occasional exam might be a good thing. She has been learning the cello for three and a half years and has never played in public. The pieces she is playing at the moment are on the grade 3 syllabus (I looked) and sometimes I think it might be nice for her to have something to work towards and a reason for polishing a piece. Once she has got her fingers round the notes she can't see why she should try to improve it by adding dynamics etc. I regularly get her beginner books out to show her that she has progressed as she is lacking in self-confidence and tends to think she has made no progress because she still can't play like her teacher. She plays scales but never sightreads anything which I think is a pity.
|
|
