rowan

I don't know anything about BATD either, but it's possible the grades might work the other way round - i.e, Grade 1 is the highest grade. This is how it works for gymnastics levels, Or perhaps the junior grades are on a different grading system altogether, like Red, Blue, Yellow, etc, and only at a more advanced level do the actual Grades kick in. One of my children did ice skating for quite a long time, and that had a complicated system that I never quite got my head around which went from Level 1 to 10, then Bronze, Silver, Gold, then Level 1 to 10 again, but on a different system. And in the Russian ballet schools abroad, I believe they only start counting the levels from about age 11, so that would be a level 1 for an 11- or 12-year-old.

So...maybe fewer (maybe two) 11-16 vocational schools, but all places are fully funded. How would that go down?

Southerndancemum, LJB is not associated with the RB at all. Coniger, your son is still very young. I personally wouldn't feel the need to enroll him in associates class at his age, especially if it's difficult for you. By all means, he could audition for the experience and the fun of it, but there will be other chances later if he's still keen.

Setting aside funding, the places go to the most talented of those who audition. When DD was an associate at the 11-14 stage, at least four students I can think of (that I know of) had never auditioned for any vocational secondary school.

I have to say that I really don't agree that the best training is necessarily found in the vocational schools, or at least some of them. What they do offer is a good number of classes, which might be hard to find elsewhere. Otherwise, children at the vocational schools would snap up all the post-16 places and those children who had never gone to vocational school wouldn't get a look in, and we know that that isn't true.

I've re-read this interesting thread a couple of times, and I wonder if the question should be... 1 - are we training too many girls? 2 - is that training good enough?

It mustn't be forgotten that we have to train more dancers than we need and would ever be needed, and this is what the dance education "system" is designed to do.. For one thing, the rate of attrition is so high - injury, assessing out, young person wanting a change of direction, etc, etc. But, more importantly, paying audiences will only pay to see the very best of the best, and even getting audiences to pay to watch dance is a job in itself. We cannot just limit the chances of becoming a dancer to those who auditioned and were accepted at the age of 11 at a small handful of UK dance schools and say, "These are and will be the best," if that best is not best in a world context.

I'm not sure most parents would necessarily know what's good technique or not. It would be easy to dazzled by the child who can do multiple pirouettes and not even know about, never mind see, poorly held turnout or sickled feet. There is a world of difference between the attitudes "Why is she learning pliés? She already did those last year," and, "The plié is the first thing you learn and the last thing you master". When DD was about 11 and getting very serious about ballet, she tried various dance schools, including an RAD one. I wanted her to do the RAD one for all the reasons that people have stated: the standard pathway of training in the UK, the exams run by a regulatory body, the UCAS points, etc. However, she rejected that one - large-ish classes and poor behaviour of some other students was a factor - in favour of a much smaller, more serious school taught by ex-professional ballet dancers but not associated with the big exam boards. She was adamant which was the better school.

Perhaps it would be better to regard the purpose of the 11-16 dance schools as not necessarily "to create employable dancers" or even "to train dancers", but rather to provide an all-round education with additional access to specialist dance training to children who are selected on their dance potential - much like many state secondary schools select or partially select their intake on their academic/sporting/musical/tecnological ability.

And the same thing is said of law students and the availability of jobs in law, and sound engineering students and the availability of jobs in sound engineering,etc, etc! Many, many students of vocational studies (except, I believe, medicine) will find it hard to get jobs in their chosen field. It doesn't mean they couldn't or shouldn't try from the outset. However, there is a problem, I believe, with the huge number of courses in various vocational fields (not just dance), which means a proliferation of various courses, often taught by "industry professionals". Often, teaching these courses has become their profession because of the lack of actual jobs in the field. The colleges often promote the idea (they want all that student finance) that there is lots of work in that field. Sadly, the reality can hit after three years of study and huge sums of money have been paid out. I, for example, work in a specialised industry, the subject matter of which is now taught at various universities. What is made less clear, however, is that your chances of being employed in that industry, even with your postgraduate degree, is very low, and your postgraduate degree is seen as more or less irrelevant. Most dance students will be aware of how precarious their chances are from the beginning, unlike many students of other vocational fields, I think. A friend of mine trained as a physiotherapist - lots of jobs there, you might have thought. 200 applications for one job...

I think there was a little discussion on this film a while back. It's a thread called "Doing Dance in 1948." Actually, I like it better on this second viewing!

I must add, when I studied Latin at a comprehensive years ago, it was an option, and not a compulsory subject. My child attends an inner-city comprehensive and both Latin and Greek (ancient) are available as extra twilight subjects (taken at school outside of the normal curriculum). Mine did Latin for a while until it clashed with the ballet lessons!

That is very useful, 2dancersmum! It can be confusing when we talk about the BTEC because of the different levels of BTEC. Because so many children won't do the desired five GCSEs, many of these children take level one or level two BTECs instead of GCSEs. In fact, in some schools, all children have to take one BTEC in addition to their GCSEs.

Unlike many countries which have a school-leaving age of 18, the UK's school-leaving age is 16, and the standard school-leaving exams are GCSEs. Passing five GCSEs at age 16, including English and Maths, is usually the minimum standard a student will need to achieve to be able to go on to further education or, often, to get a job. Academic children would gain more than five. GCSEs open up pathways to further education, including A-levels. Even for post-16 dance courses, a student would need five GCSEs as a minimum requirement. You would not, in the main, be able to study A-levels without GCSEs, and you would need good grades in the GCSE subject to be allowed to study that subject at A-level. For the many children who stay on at school after 16 for a further two years, their GCSEs can be seen as an intermediate point in their high school education,and once they have gained A-levels, the GCSEs,and what grades they achieved in the exams, become less relevant.

Further to Orchidblue's very clear post, I would say... "Level" may mean O-level or A-level. Old-timers on this forum may refer to the O-level (Ordinary level) or the CSE (Certificate of Secondary Education) – the precursors to the GCSE – also taken at age 16. The GCSE was introduced to prevent the early division of children into either the more academic O-level course or the less academic CSE course. Very old-timers may refer to the School Certificate, the exam that predated the O-level. And "GS" may mean grammar school. The majority of children in the UK attend comprehensive schools for secondary education. These replaced the grammar schools/secondary modern schools (although these still exist in some areas). The comprehensive school, which takes children of all abilities, was introduced to prevent early divisions into “academic” and “less-academic” education. The grammar schools (many fewer than there used to be) selected children on academic ability at age 11 – these children would be more likely to take the O-level. Those that did not pass (the majority) attended a secondary modern school.

Actually, I think Fiz said it first and I thought it was very apt!

A compliment indeed! I'm also pretty keen on this one of a very young Alessandra Ferri, despite the film maker cutting off her prized feet in many a place! I can't get this to embed, but here's a link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkGMNCfY2io

Snap! That's my favourite video, too, Spanner!

There were more than a few admiring gasps from DD as she watched this video, so I can only assume that means the girl is really good! However, child ballet stars don't always become adult ballet stars. In fact, although often employed, they don't necessarily have jobs/positions at the big companies that one might expect from seeing their early talent. I also think sometimes (not necessarily in this case) there is something disconcerting about children playing roles that require a maturity of emotional and sensual expression.

Well, how times change regarding the importance of Latin! I attended a Northern comprehensive school and I did Latin up to the end of the third year, and it was one of my best subjects. However, I was not allowed to take it as an O'level because I was already taking two languages (French and German). My closest school friend could take the three languages, but because I was considered a good all-rounder the powers that be wanted me to take another science subject so as not to limit my options later. It was also compulsory to take a practical arts subject – the choice was domestic science, needlework, metalwork/woodwork and art – and none of these were my strong points! I have a distinct recollection of going to see the head of year and asking to be able to take Latin instead of art. But no – ten purely academic subjects (which was a lot in those days) was considered far too much. Of course, in the end, it was art which took up the most time and effort and which I just scraped through. In the sixth form, I was able to take Russian to O’level, but I’ve always had a niggling regret about not having Latin. As for Terpsichore – the name, not the forum member! – I am most aware of the name through the ballet documentary The Captives of Terpsichore. As far as I know, this has never been released with English subtitles. I’ve just seen it in sections on the internet. If anyone knows any different, I’d love to know. edited for typo

Yes, I think you're right, Victoriapage. I don't think the chances of a performing job after studying dance at a university would be particularly high, but you would end up with a degree. Butler University is one of the better known ones.

I would hope no-one would feel they could not take part in this forum, including BD19, who I suspect might be a much younger forum member than I had realised. It is always interesting to read others' points of view, even if we disagree! To be honest, I've never heard of ENB school etc taking an 18-year-old into their first year, not a girl at least. (Is this true?) I think the same will be true for the US vocational schools as well, unless you had had top-notch intensive training for years beforehand. However, I think there are lots of American universities and colleges at which you can study ballet as a major - lots more than in the UK - and you can go at 18.

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that they think that "standards and ease of acceptance is easier abroad than it is in the UK". People are interested in studying abroad for all sorts of reasons, some of which have been mentioned on this thread, and they'd like to know how to go about it.

BD19, I think Invisible Circus is only trying to be helpful. And there are children in Britain who can join European ballet schools because they are already fluent in the language through being bilingual or having joint nationality and who have family in the relevant country. I know ballet students who have done just this. However, I think your point still stands about the US schools. The US population is five times that of the UK and it has a huge pool of young dancers to choose from for its schools - many US schools are world class and competition for a place is fierce. Trying out for an American summer school would be a good way of seeing what the school was like, and, in fact, is often compulsory before a vocational place would be offered. The summer schools are expensive (unless you're offered a scholarship) - a bit of a moneyspinner for the institutions, I think - and the classes can be crowded.

Unfortunately, top professional ballet dancers and top professional ballet photographers aren't immune to the efforts of the Photoshopper (so it looks to me) in the pursuit of selling stuff - in this case, footwear/tights for a US footwear chain - and all under the brand name American Ballet Theatre as well. The shoes have the drawstrings tied into bows on the outside, and that supporting foot looks distinctly odd. I'd bet that originally Misty Copeland was wearing pointe shoes for this photo. Opinions welcome!