Response to National Music Plan by Margaret Griffiths
Margaret Griffiths has written a response to the National Plan for Music Education. (See below). This article was originally written for the OU/Trinity Sound.Ed website.
The recently published National Plan for Music Education (NMP) has been received with welcome and relief. The Henley Review which preceded it and the Government’s positive response to that document gave us encouragement. A very strong case had been presented to the politicians about the value and place of music and music education – both the intrinsic value of music making and also the integral educational and broader benefits which are concomitants.
We have, then, the government’s policy for the next few years – though, understandably, without the outcome of the National Curriculum (NC) Review or decisions on the future statutory curriculum. It would be impossible to see how the NMP could be implemented without music being a secure part of the statutory provision, taking its place along with the range of subjects which provide a broad and balanced curriculum. The NC was never a ragbag of ad hoc provision, but carefully defined, whatever its shortcomings; in which each subject or area is a distinctive and significant mode of learning. There is little evidence to suggest that more time spent on a smaller number of subjects produces higher standards – but rather that it is the most effective use of the time available which makes the difference.
In terms of funding, organisation and monitoring, the NMP responsibilities have been devolved from the two government departments – DfE and DCMS – to Arts Council England (ACE). Funding will be allocated to newly formed ‘hubs’ as a result of application and decisions based on criteria published and administered by ACE.
While the terminology may be innovative, hubs are not new. Partnership working in several forms is now well established, recommended and supported by the Music Manifesto. Recently funded government initiatives, e.g. Wider Opportunities (from 2001) Pathfinder Programmes (from 2006) and Sing Up (from 2008) have relied on the music and music education professions working together to integrate their efforts and resources. The most striking and effective results have been when practitioners from both sources work together with the same young people in the same schools/settings and classrooms/venues. This has renewed professional energies, developed existing and new pedagogies; and led to a much richer experience for the young people. While most of the initiatives have involved pupils of school age, an enormous amount of work has also been undertaken - and progress made - with the music provision for pre-school children.
It was though, timely to review the provision and to formulate policies to ensure that the broadest provision of the highest quality reaches all young people.
While the political, funding and administrative decisions have been made, there remain a number of issues which the professions need to address – and however difficult, it will remain their responsibility to do so. It could be timely for at least two of the major professional organisations to work in a more formal and funded partnership.
1. Who leads the leaders?
The newly designated hubs will have their funding devolved to a leader who will be responsible and accountable for its demonstrably effective use and reach. While these processes will be monitored, we need effective development of ‘hub’ leadership to ensure consistency – particularly in applying principles, values, equity, quality and standards. It might be timely for national organisations to work in partnership to appoint jointly a small national team of specialists to address and disseminate a range of good practices in leadership. Our hub leaders will need vision and imagination, as well as expertise in organising and managing staff and resources. Their responsibilities will be wide ranging, including how to build in quality, as well as how to measure and then demonstrate it throughout the provision, as well as to stakeholders.
2. Disadvantage, isolation and Special Educational Needs
We need to be very careful to define these terms when applied to the new policies and existing practices. There is an uneasy acceptance in the document that this is support for economic disadvantage; i.e. those families on low incomes, or those with very little disposable income. There is, as far as I can read, no reference to cultural disadvantage – which is not always linked to family economic circumstances. Cultural isolation can be as evident in urban as in rural areas; and among the affluent as well as those with fewer resources – for different reasons.
Young people who have additional support for literacy, numeracy, for their behaviour, or for a disability, need to have open access to the new experiences which music offers and in which they can flourish. While we can adapt materials, resources and equipment, we must have the highest expectation of all young people and support their aspirations.
3. Who will demonstrate rather than demand ‘high quality music education’
Inspection and evaluation show that nationally, the quality of provision is uneven and that professional isolation as well as inadequate opportunities for professional development are usually responsible. We can’t fatten the pig by weighing it, any more than we can improve pedagogy by observing and writing about it! The findings of monitoring, inspection and evaluation all need follow-up to address the identified and agreed needs – not just self-assessed requests – for support. Professional development of the highest quality, as well as the broadest range, will be needed. Specialist leaders will be needed to ensure that support is in place to agree, establish, maintain and improve standards, as well as the quality – and future direction - of the provision overall.
Much work has been undertaken nationally, regionally and locally to provide the highest quality support for practitioners through a range of effective CPD programmes. This will continue to be an important integral part of the new hubs. It would be timely to identify the most effective leaders and programmes.
4. Whose music and whose traditions?
There are confusing references to ‘classical’ forms of music making to which all young people are, it is suggested, to aspire. These are largely acoustic traditions of not just ‘classical’ era music – but a range of music which continues to be played on classical acoustic instruments – about 400 years worth at least! There is though, an implied eliminating hierarchy throughout the document! The pinnacles of such aspiration are national groups drawn from strong – but not fully representative traditions. The showcases of Music for Youth suggest that there are very high standards locally and regionally – not just nationally - of music drawn from a much broader range of traditions – all now well established. Young people who belong to these more local groups rehearse regularly and progress with their peer group, while at the same time contributing to their communities as well as receiving support from them. The amateur and semi-professional activity across the country is immense and was described and analysed in the DCMS report ‘Our Creative Talent’.
There are also local opportunities within and beyond schools for ensembles to work together. It is not unusual for schools to combine their vocal and instrumental forces to perform large scale works from music theatre or opera repertoire; or to support smaller mixed ensembles for performances of their own compositions and preferences. Gospel and community choirs regularly work with instrumental ensembles.
There are several references to the promotion of ‘choirs’ and the links with formal choral activities. These are significant and successful. The NMP implementation, though, will surely support the whole broad range of vocal ensembles. These already demonstrate the rich tapestry of genres and traditions which are now very well established, of high quality; and in which many practitioners are engaged and employed.
5. Music technologies
While a very helpful annexe gives details of how more secure provision and experiences of music technologies might be delivered, there is no thread throughout the document which would integrate this important strand. Most young people work with both acoustic and electronic resources and for many the two are combined. The development of ‘performance technologies’ enables young people to have instrumental and studio resources in the palm of their hands! Music technology is no longer the separate support or adjunct to music experiences and activities – it is the equal partner and often the stimulus. Again we need to identify and integrate our national specialist practitioners as leaders in this important area.
6. Creativity, experiment and innovation
While the emphasis of the NMP document is on music as a performance art form, it will be important to retain the significant aspects of creativity, experiment and innovation which these activities and learning modes demand and on which performance depends. It is also important that young people have opportunities and experiences of music as an abstract and evolving art form. At times we need to take away title, text and lyrics so that young people can invent and develop their own sounds and soundscapes, using acoustic or electronic resources, or combining them. This has been a significant strength of NC provision – because it is at the heart of musical experience.
7. Access by hubs to additional funding
While the new policy will gradually establish equitable distribution of reducing government allocated funds, it will not get rid of other inequalities. Schools vary in both their policies as well as their capacity to pass on charges to families. In some areas there may be little or no access to additional funding from Trusts, charities or voluntary organisations. The continuing contribution of local authorities is yet another variable. The equitable distribution of government funding for the newly formed hubs will not remove the unequal access to other funding.
8. Needs analyses and skills’ audits
While it will be important for partners to work hard to establish and address agreed local needs, we need to take care to maximise the information we could have about the workforce. While practitioners are employed for one specialism, they often have expertise and experience in others. Likewise school-based teachers may have trained in one specialism, but developed others; typically directing/conducting and music technologies. It was not unusual in Wider Opportunities, Musical Futures or Sing Up sessions to find both a flexible and versatile workforce. Wind players could equally well play and coach acoustic and electric guitars; string players and vocalists were often skilled keyboard or piano accompanists. A Skills Audit would provide information not only on the first specialisms, but on additional expertise and experiences which could be offered in a much wider context. These aspects could also be integrated into any new ‘Qualified Music Educator’ accreditation, for team members and team leaders.
The government has produced clear policies, expectations and direction for the next few years. Devolved funding, the responsibility of the ACE, will gradually be more equitably distributed, though it will gradually reduce. The established infra structures, organisations and workforce are in place for new ways of working, while sustaining and improving current practice. There is much to be done – as always. With strong professional leadership and more formal partnerships between our major national organisations much can be achieved. Our young people and the adults who work with them deserve no less.
Margaret M Griffiths
HMI for music 1985 – 2006
Evaluator for Pathfinder and Sing Up programmes 2007 - 2011
Team leader for QA for the Federation of Music Services 2008 – 2011
Author’s Copyright November 2011.
