MARCH 3rd AM SKYPE CHAT

On Tuesday morning a group of us had a Skype session with Adesola.

We had a couple of people from Module 1 and a few from Module 2. It was a really beneficial session and it certainly helped me with what I was querying.

At the start of the chat, after introducing ourselves etc, we all one by one stated what we would like to talk about.

My topic of discussion was about my line of Professional Inquiry.

I went to explain how what I was thinking for my Professional Inquiry was down the route of why we as performers can't obtain a PGCE until we have a degree, despite the majority of professional performers having a National Diploma.

This was a great discussion as most people in the Skype chat we're really vocalising and saying they completely agreed.
We discussed what a PGCE is and why the diploma isn't deemed a good enough qualification to have to get on to a PGCE course.

We were all quite passionate which was great. Everyone had the same beliefs that we should be able to do so, so I'm definitely going to explore in to why it is this way.

We were talking about GCSE Dance teachers, and how they are the PE teachers just also teaching dance and how it wasn't fair, us trained dancers couldn't have that teaching status until we also had the degree.

Adesola raised a good point that whilst it is beneficial to research this, a lot of answers found would all be the same; that PE is just part of the dance curriculum so that's why PE teachers teach it, or Drama is in the English curriculum so that's why the English teachers teach Drama. And the curriculum isn't changing!

We then started asking questions like, why is Dance just on the PE Curriculum, or why is Drama just in the English curriculum?
Why is it that the Arts is deemed a lesser subject?
Why is the Arts something schools suggest pupils do if they can't do anything else?
Why is it deemed more intelligent to use your mind, as opposed to working with your body?

My professional inquiry has changed because of this Skype session.

I am now really interested why the arts don't have a more specialist curriculum.

Music has it's own. Now, it is extensive, involving many things from playing instruments, learning about sheet music, and sight reading through to what everything means on a musical score, and then also the history of music! But there wasn't when I was in school, a specialised section for performing music through vocals.

I aim to explore now the stigma's around being a dancer/singer. Why is it that people think performers are not "clever"..?

I aim to explore performing arts in the secondary curriculum, why it is not as specialised, or compulsory, but also research the battles performers face. 

I assume for a male of a young age it must take a fair amount of courage for them to come out and say they would like to do ballet, or musicals or something in the arts.
Does this impact males in the government when they are looking at the arts in secondary education? (I secretly hope Michael Gove is a closet ballerina).

I also want to explore why the strength performers have, whether it is dancers, vocalists, musical theatre, are deemed less intelligible.

I challenge the Department for Education to be able to do 2 hours of ballet, a 1 hour choral class including sight reading and harmonies, then a 2 minute monologue, followed by an hour and a half jazz, then a solo vocal performance...
Because that's what I had to do as a teenager, in one day, for my audition just to get in to theatre school.

I may be a bit uneducated currently on the above, but aim to change that, however I fear dfe will never know the strength, education or knowledge performers have.