Middle and high schools start auditioning and training students into “advanced” art, preparing them to go onto competitions and onto serious careers in programs differentiated from the casual art classes.
Learning calculus won’t be enough as a professional in STEM either — but AP Calculus is the equivalent of audition-only advanced art classes. (Which exist all over.)
Both had audition programs in art for “advanced” classes (both music and drawing), where students were matched with more serious training and where their bands went to competitions and drawings were entered in regional shows.
I think you’re confusing “good, on track for professional” with “absolute top tier” — many students from regular schools go on to, eg, be animators at a studio or choir directors.
The same split exists in math:
- advanced classes you have to place into exist at most schools, eg AP calculus
- but to be the “absolute top tier”, you’re talking about STEM schools and private mentoring programs
You need the first for engineers, scientists, etc — even if they’re not going to be Terry Tao.
“We only cover bad art — we don’t focus on students who go on to be professional artists.”
“We only focus on bad English — we don’t focus on students who go on to be professional writers.”
“We only focus on bad history - we don’t focus on students who go on to study history or social science.”
Each of those has an AP and IB track, competitions to find elites, etc — just as mathematics should for high performers.
If as an educator, you only teach to the lowest common denominator, then you’re failing the children you’re supposed to educate.
To me, your post reads as if you’re bragging about failing at your job.