//
you're reading...
Uncategorized

High-quality music: the preserve of the rich?

Posted by ⋅ ⋅ 49 Comments

ripleyDon Gillthorpe writes:

“When are you going to apply for a job in a private school?”  This is the question I get asked most by my musical colleagues in other schools.  I’ve thought about it; I’ve even come close to applying on a couple of occasions.  Something is still holding me back—I’d like to think it has something to do with social justice.  We do not have the resources to deliver the kind of music provision which can be seen in some of the larger independent schools, but we will continue to do everything we can to provide the best opportunities possible.

I believe that all pupils deserve access to high-quality music-making in their schools, and that we as a sector are falling short of delivering this on a scandalously large scale.  At this point, I should probably define what I mean by high-quality; I do not want this to be misread as ‘all pupils should follow a narrow curriculum focusing on Western art music, from Bach to Bartok’.  High-quality secondary music education (it is worth focusing on this as I am a secondary specialist), I believe, stretches pupils and enables them to think musically, to perform musically, and to express themselves musically through composition and commentary, regardless of the genres experienced.  If you read my post last February, you will be aware that I have specific views on teaching music literacy (by which I mean, quite literally, reading, interpreting and writing using musical notations), but I have always asserted that ‘it’ should be a tool for creating musical performances, not an end in itself.

There is no other subject in the KS4 curriculum (to my knowledge) which requires parents to have spent a significant amount of money on one-to-one lessons in order to access the higher grades, and certainly the new Music GCSEs are encouraging this even further, with increasingly challenging specifications.  How can we level the playing field to make sure that pupils have the necessary skills to succeed, regardless of their finances?  I should probably point out at this juncture that most of my singing, trumpet and piano lessons were paid for by my church and school – this was not an option for my parents.

[If mentioning notation wasn’t enough to poke the music education community with a sharp stick, then this should do it.]  I believe that Musical Futures is most definitely not the answer, in the way in which it is conducted in many schools. As far as I can see, this method of ‘teaching’—when operated in isolation, where the children only manage to get access to the instruments for one hour a week because they are needed for other classes—is woefully inadequate.  Popular musicians learn through total immersion.  We have some amazing guitarists and drummers who manage to become proficient because they are practising constantly (often at the expense of their other homework); an hour a week is insufficient unless they can take the instrument home and explore their interest further.  For many pupils, buying an instrument of their own is not an option.  Whilst pupils who are subjected to this method of pedagogical babysitting are undoubtedly having a jolly time, I would contest that their progress is slow, their performances mediocre, and their musicality hindered as a result.  The even more pernicious side to this is that many pupils who have ‘enjoyed’ KS3 music (‘a release from the rigours of the academic curriculum’ – see February 2016) can be recruited on to GCSE courses under false pretenses, finding that they lack the skills to succeed.

At school we aim for KS3 Music to equip pupils with the skills, knowledge and understanding to enable them to continue their music-making.  Our curriculum is designed to wedge open the doors leading towards GCSE and then on to A level.  That isn’t unmusical, it is pragmatic; pupils at options time expect GCSE French or History to be like KS3 French or History, but more challenging—Music shouldn’t be any different.  Whilst many pupils will not opt to take Music beyond KS3, they ‘get off the train’ with tangible musical skills, which many pursue privately as instrumentalists or singers.

When I work with PGCE students in planning their lessons, the first step is to establish what the children will learn.  What will they be able to do, what will they know, what will they understand at the end of the lesson which they couldn’t or didn’t at the start?  The next step is how to make that accessible and enjoyable.  I do wonder whether too many music lessons start by considering what the pupils will enjoy, leaving the learning as an after-thought.  Those pupils who have had instrumental lessons since Year 4 are likely to choose and do well at GCSE Music, regardless of what the KS3 curriculum contains; I’d like to make my subject accessible to the often-forgotten majority who seem to be written off when their parents do not, can not, or will not sign them up for one-to-one lessons.

Unanswered questions arising from these musings:

  • How do we ensure that pupils can access instrumental or vocal tuition, regardless of personal finances?  Often getting hold of an instrument is the biggest problem.  We seem to be doing a good line in acquiring second-hand ones at the moment; we also use Pupil Premium money to help FSM and E6 pupils with tuition fees.
  • Are enjoyment and progress mutually exclusive? Surely it must be possible to stretch and challenge pupils whilst having fun at the same time?
  • What is the best way to ‘have your cake and eat it’ with KS3 music?  How can we properly prepare the 7% for GCSE Music whilst engaging the 93%?

 

Don Gillthorpe

Director of Music and Performing Arts

Ripley St Thomas Church of England Academy

Lancaster

Discussion

49 thoughts on “High-quality music: the preserve of the rich?”

  1. As far as obtaining instruments goes, the Salvation Army often has brass instruments spare as do many Scout troops. They are often in need of repair but if you get into partnership with them they might be able to loan out an instrument. Some schools have had instrument “amnesties”, as many adults have little used instruments at home and this is an easy way to give something back.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by pepperdog | March 1, 2017, 11:04 am
    Reply to this comment

  2. I agree with you in practical terms that KS3 should prepare students for GCSE, or at least give a realistic impression of what it will be like, but I think there is a big disconnect between how a lots of KS3 music teachers see the subject’s place in the curriculum, and how exam boards and their various advisors and bosses see the subject. As a result, to allow the GCSE (or whatever KS4 curriculum a department uses) to ‘trickle down’ is, for some teachers, to shift away from what ‘should’ be the basic substance of an expressive performing art.

    The third question in your bullet point I think summarises the whole dilemma nicely (though I think your percentages are wrong- many more than 7% might enjoy a more serious approach even if they don’t take it to GCSE). The fact remains that there are students who get something profound and important out of the ‘down time’ they get from deliberately ‘non-academic’ KS3 lessons!

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by wrobertsmusic | March 1, 2017, 11:22 am
    Reply to this comment

  3. Young people are brave and risk-taking marvels. My views are constantly challenged by their ability to surprise and think outside of the box in music making and event organising.

    Working in a range of music settings has opened my eyes to new ways of working.
    Good Music Departments strive to offer a range of opportunities that promote the next steps for a child’s music progression, relevant to today. Musical Futures has changed its approach of late to be more holistic in the classroom. I disagree that it’s “pedagogical babysitting” as ideas are generated by pupils as musicleaders.
    I would argue that GCSE Music is not inspiring pupils to engage with today’s creative industry pathways.

    I think that little is made of the vast career paths available in the Music Industry. They need to be clear and established by any music provider. This requires a level of awareness and experience that’s difficult to provide in isolation. Music Departments need to be open to networking and skill sharing for mutual benefit and not for holier-than-though pontification. It’s a tough enough job and there are many Departments that do an excellent job (often unrecognised), despite the governing Hegemonies and constant changes that they face.

    Lastly if you’re a parent and you’re skint, and your child plays or sings, then check out the Arts Council’s ‘Take it Away’ scheme, get down to your local music store and get playing! Better still get in touch with your Hub and get advice on accessing music!

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by Euan Smith | March 1, 2017, 1:01 pm
    Reply to this comment

  4. I think the curriculum that inspires passion in the head of music will be the best curriculum for a particular school at a particular time in a particular place because that passion will bring out the best response in the most students. If that curriculum is closely allied to GCSE, that is undoubtedly an advantage.

    I can see there is a perfectly reasonable social justice argument for teaching standard notation as a priority because it is unlikely to be learnt at all if not taught at school age.

    But can we not aim a bit higher than poking each other with sticks? The people leading Musical Futures are really smart. They have thought deeply about issues that matter and they have massively improved music education in many of their schools. They have refined their position through rigourous debate and dialogue. They have demonstrated humility about the weaknesses that inevitably emerge as the movement develops and been open to change and to analysing their own flaws. We can all learn much from that.

    Liked by 3 people

    Posted by LJ Radick | March 1, 2017, 6:15 pm
    Reply to this comment

  5. I too have made a decision over many years teaching music at secondary level to ensure that all KS3 students leave the course with tangible skills and are suitably challenged. This includes the ability to read and write musical notation, to be able to analyse a variety of musical styles using technical vocabulary, to learn about musical harmony and composition skills etc. These are the very basic foundations that all schools should aim to provide our young people.

    I also agree that not all schools are doing this particularly well; indeed this should all start at primary school level – but that is a whole new argument for another day!! However, we also have a duty to prepare our students for the 21st Century music world (which is changing at a rapid speed and very different to the one even I learnt music in). I think the Musical Futures initiative should very much be central to this – but only if embedded within a rich and varied course. The problem I think is that it has become an ‘either’ ‘or’ situation. Also, if done correctly a Musical Futures style project should be an extension of existing skills, with the addition of the incorporation of music technology and a degree of independent learning. In Year 9 we do a traditional Theme and Variations project – old school on manuscript – immediately followed by working in ‘bands’ to create a cover version of an original song. I couldn’t honestly say which approach produces the best (and most musical) work but they both offer equal challenges. It is great to watch my grade 8 classically trained students trying to create a version of a 1975 song for oboe, violin, guitar, piano and drums, just as it is watching a singer/songwriter create a tonic minor inversion of Frere Jacques!!!

    Everything in moderation would be my line of thought on this…great that these matters are being discussed. So important we keep the musical education flag flying. These are challenging and difficult times.

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by Paul Swannell | March 1, 2017, 7:18 pm
    Reply to this comment

  6. KS3 Music should prepare students for GCSE study. Any less is to do the students a considerable disservice and undermines uptake at KS4 and KS5.

    Working backwards from the end goal (whether that is A Level or GCSE Music) is simple logic and doesn’t remove the opportunity for students to learn in a fun and engaging way. It does mean, however, that there is a plan which ensures students are prepared for the next stage of their learning and have a solid foundation of skills and understanding with which to draw from. Of course, it is their choice whether they wish to take GCSE Music, but I’d rather they made that decision from an informed position.

    Treating KS3 Music lessons as an opportunity ‘for ‘down time’ in a deliberately ‘non-academic’ lesson’ sounds like a good way to quickly reduce the standing of Music in a school. If students see it as a doss then they won’t treat it as a ‘proper’ subject and if that is the case then why would they take GCSE or A Level Music, especially if they realise that ‘down time’ is not in any way preparation for GCSE studies? That view will rub off on staff as well, and personally I wouldn’t want to work in a school which sees Music as a release from doing ‘proper’ subjects.

    As someone who, prior to teaching in state secondary schools, taught on Music degree courses at a number of HE institutions, I can safely say that using KS3 Music lessons as ‘down time’ is not the way to support students as they develop their understanding of Music. Furthermore, students left in a practice room for an hour to bash through ‘Seven Nation Army’ does not even equip them with the performance skills necessary to gig in the local area – they will need both to practice and rehearse (there is a clear distinction between the two) with far greater frequency, using instruments that are readily accessible. This can be done using school instruments and facilities with minimal input from the teacher. This begs the question why it needs to be undertaken in a timetabled KS3 Music lesson.

    Teaching, regardless of subject, should be about opening doors for students, not closing things off. Preparation and progression are key to this. It is easy to focus on the fun and to neglect the skills, knowledge, and understanding that students will require to continue making music in the future. The challenge is to deliver this preparation in an engaging manner. I have yet to encounter a music department at an independent school which prioritises fun over a foundation of knowledge and understanding. In the state sector we should be aiming to close the gap, not widen it through the use of KS3 Music lessons as ‘down time’.

    Like

    Posted by Dr P J Allcock | March 1, 2017, 9:27 pm
    Reply to this comment

  7. I assert and maintain that long term learning to become responsive members of a semi-formal ensemble is a worthwhile, rigourous, challenging, academic, stretching, confidence-building, life-enhancing thing to do.for pupils from all levels of prior experience. Teaching it certainly stretches my facilities to their absolute limits. A lot of people can’t or won’t learn to do it well. If this is because they have positive reasons to adopt a different approach that suits their school better, I have no problem with that.

    It can be done well at primary level and I suspect there would be widespread sympathy to the notion that this is perhaps the ideal time.

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by LJ Radick | March 2, 2017, 9:37 am
    Reply to this comment

  8. What a shame the writer of this blog (and those who moderate this community) felt it necessary to single out just one of so many approaches to the teaching and learning of music that we see in our classrooms as not working. To throw that in seemingly for the purpose of getting some kind of reaction is hardly helpful in promoting constructive debate.

    I’m not writing here as a Musical Futures advocate, but as a teacher who has been lucky enough to visit classrooms regularly and to work with a hugely diverse number of teachers and practitioners all of whom care deeply about and believe in what they do and why they do it.

    Like everything, Musical Futures is done well and less well as it’s an approach that rests very firmly in the hands of the teachers who adopt and use it in their classroom. I’ve seen and taught great MF lessons and MF lessons that really didn’t work and I have seen and taught more formal lessons that didn’t work and some that were great. Teachers have plenty of choice over what and how they teach and we should be thankful for the flexibility and creativity that allows in an otherwise narrowing curriculum.

    I also think the comments about GCSE do a huge disservice to teachers like the one who emailed me this week to say that they had 43 first choice options for GCSE music this year up from 16 just 2 years ago. In this particular case, their embedding of Musical Futures was cited as the reason for this increase and to suggest that students have opted to take music under false pretences also infers that the teacher would be unable to assure them of success. Having watched this teacher work with KS4 students I have seen some great practice with adapting the teaching of the GCSE syllabus to the needs of their students, something I’m sure all teachers aspire to, I can’t see why teachers who choose one approach above another would be any different in this respect.

    I’m sick of the my way is better than your way debate that only serves to pull the music education community apart when we most need to be supporting each other as times are tough. Let’s celebrate the 68% take up at KS4 at the London school I’ve just visited (where Musical Futures wasn’t cited as the only reason for the increase just a very small part!) and think about how GCSE teaching can build on what is clearly an enthusiasm and passion for our subject rather than pick at what brought those students to the pathway they have chosen.

    My response is simple. Define your values as a musician, and educator and identify what underpins your music department and the ethos and aims of your school. Think about what you want students to leave with in terms of musical skills, understanding, learning and then find an approach that is inclusive, accessible and meaningful to the children that sit in front of you who deserve the most from what is sadly a shrinking entitlement to music. That’s your choice and responsibility as an educator. Use it wisely.

    Liked by 4 people

    Posted by Anna Gower | March 2, 2017, 5:15 pm
    Reply to this comment

    • Actually, Musical Futures seems to be coming out of this rather well. Already we have several comments praising the work of Mufu – and I’m sure there will be more to come.

      But I do feel this is something worth debating. The fact is that Mufu is seen by many as the ‘marmite’ of music education, with supporters and detractors vociferous in equal measure.

      I’ve seen some great Mufu sessions and have the highest respect for many of the fine Mufu champions who post regularly on these pages and who celebrate and acknowledge the positives that Mufu brings to their work. On the other hand, I have also witnessed some dire Mufu sessions and watched some less than inspiring clips on YouTube of some classroom activity done in the name of Mufu. And when I visited Don’s school and saw some of the staggeringly high quality work that goes on in his non-selective comprehensive school [in a mixed catchment area], I do find myself wondering if we are setting the bar too low…

      Of course, as Euan points out earlier in this conversation, that are many interesting new strands to the Mufu offer, but it is the “Informal Learning” model [and how it is implemented] which seems to give the most cause for concern. Also worth noting that Don chooses his words carefully when he says “… in the way it is conducted in many schools”. And I think this is where the problem lies. I want to look more closely at this and share some thoughts in a further post sometime next week.

      Finally, I want to say that I do try to be even-handed in moderating this debating area. Over the past year, invitations to write Editorials have been offered to senior figures in Musical Futures, David and Abi, and both invitations have been (politely) turned down. So do let me know if you would be interested in writing one Anna, and I’ll be delighted to schedule you in!

      Like

      Posted by davidashworth | March 2, 2017, 6:49 pm
      Reply to this comment

      • Thanks David, that’s a kind offer and I do appreciate that balance is important in debates of this kind.

        It’s also good of you take the time to respond to my points. I think it’s important to note that my responses here and on my own blog are my own, not by any means an ‘official’ MF response.

        I’ve always championed the value of teachers being presented with a complete range of options and opnions in order to choose the best routes for their students in line with the values I mention above. I don’t think debating the merits or otherwise of one particular approach is helpful when the question being asked here is involves a far wider and important debate and we risk letting ourselves be distracted by what is effectively an unrelated issue which as you say can be discussed in another forum.

        Let’s not focus on what doesn’t work, let’s celebrate what does and share the successes and the learning so that more students will ultimately benefit from the best possible musical experiences in school from primary through secondary and beyond.

        Like

        Posted by Anna Gower | March 2, 2017, 7:25 pm

  9. We’ve got a ground rules problem here.

    If someone wants to be adversarial, advance a position, and claim to be doing things better than others, there are time-honoured rules for dealing with that. Specifically, the piece ought to conclude with a clear summary of the advanced position. Others can then challenge that position or support it and its proponent can attempt to defend it. Here’s a good example: [[https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nick-gibb-the-social-justice-case-for-an-academic-curriculum]]. Only if we follow these rules is it acceptable to use derogatory disrespectful language like “pedagogcial babysitting” because only then does the proponent know that any rudeness must be justified later.

    If on the other hand someone is more comfortable with a dialogue-type approach and hopes that there may be value in testifying to their lived experience, recording the tentative or firm conclusions this experience has led them towards and then inviting other to join in the conversation in the hope that the conversation will progress, and understanding advance, then that’s different. I’m less familiar with this type of writing but in educational circles it tends to conclude with prompts directed at others to continue the conversation.

    Here we’ve got a mix and that’s something to be avoided in future I think.

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by LJ Radick | March 2, 2017, 9:18 pm
    Reply to this comment

    • Hi LJ

      Yes, we are getting a bit close to the edge in this month’s discussions. However this particular issue is one that both camps have long been aware of. I’m sure we would all agree that we need to seek ways of addressing low quality music lessons which are a result of misguided interpretations of Musical Futures. We have pussyfooted round this one before with no discernable improvement, so I do think that on this occasion there is justification for a more robust debate. We need a space in which we can air our frustrations and although passions are roused and tempers sometimes flare, we might have to accept this as a consequence of sorting out the root causes of the underlying problems – which hopefully will lead to successful ways of addressing them. I’m confident that the contributors to this discussion will not let the arguments get too personal – if it does, then I will step in…

      I’m far more concerned that the discussions on this website actually have some impact and make a difference, rather than stoking up arguments as a way of chasing after increased ratings. The readership of these Editorials is now consistently high and I do think that TTM is recognised as the place to go to, for those who want to observe and engage in quality discussion on important music education issues.

      I think this month’s debate is going to be really important and worthwhile – let’s see how it unfolds…

      Like

      Posted by davidashworth | March 3, 2017, 8:06 am
      Reply to this comment

  10. A quick response to the issues raised thus far – it is certainly interesting to hear the positive experiences which people have had with Musical Futures in their settings. I am afraid, however, that I can only speak from experience and, as David says, I chose very carefully when I criticised how Musical Futures is ‘conducted in many schools’.

    I couldn’t agree more with Euan when he says that music departments should work in partnership, engaging in networking and skill-sharing – we certainly try to do this as much as possible, and have built strong partnerships in recent years with a number of other schools and music organisations. I think that LJ is right when she says that the Musical Futures approach might be particularly successful in primary schools and, of course, everything in moderation as advocated by Paul is clearly a good idea (our subject is one of the most diverse in the curriculum and clearly this should be celebrated).

    Like Anna, I am fortunate to get out of school and see the work of a range of practitioners, but this is usually in the form of school improvement work where I have been deployed as an SLE to help another music department. I have experienced Musical Futures work in a number of schools, where pupils made no discernable improvement in their playing; the pupils regarded the lessons as an extension of their break time and it was difficult to establish what, if anything, they had learnt. My recommendation in each case was to restructure the KS3 Music curriculum to focus on progress and skill development leading towards KS4; the freedom afforded to the pupils seemed too much for them to cope with, without sufficient guidance on how to play the instruments (and without being able to take them home and teach themselves with YouTube and the like), and the teacher seemed almost redundant, acting as firefighter rather than a musician in the classroom. I am willing to consider that I have perhaps just been unlucky in my experience of Musical Futures, but the descriptions I used above (which I accept that some may feel are disrespectful and derogatory) are accurate observations.

    Picking up on Paul’s comments about creating a cover version of a song, this sounds like an amazing project but, as he says, the pupils are already experienced in playing their instruments. I can see how the independent-learning aspect of Musical Futures can be very beneficial—and, indeed, we set our Yr 9 pupils an ensemble task where they go off into practice rooms to work, playing their own instruments—but I would prefer to teach them the basics first. Having spent significant time on keyboards and singing with everyone in Yr 7/8, our Yr 9s are able to do this confidently.

    Pepperdog’s comment about an Instrument Amnesty is an excellent one. We did one of these a few years ago and it had great results; we even managed to get four upright pianos for our new practice rooms. It might be time to push this again. Euan’s comments about the ‘Take it away’ scheme are valid but, as this is still essentially a loan, it is not accessible to all pupils as it still needs to be paid back. We are aware that our Hub has a large stock of instruments available, but these are not accessible to us as we employ our own peripatetic staff. When I have requested instruments in the past, I have been told that the only way they can be hired is if I also agree to employ their teachers; the cost of this makes it impractical. I have offered to pay to hire these, but this is not something they will consider.

    I perhaps should have expected that this discussion would end up focusing on Musical Futures, given that my views are against the tide on this, but I would also love to hear how people think we can make GCSE and A-level Music accessible to those pupils who don’t have the financial backing for instrumental lessons.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by Don Gillthorpe | March 2, 2017, 10:33 pm
    Reply to this comment

  11. The GCSE and A-Level are designed to be inaccessible to pupils who don’t have financial backing. They are exams created to maintain the idea of musical and non- musical people. They privilege a narrowly conceived version of musicality and any attempt to make GCSE and A-Level music accessible merely replicates the division that is supposedly being challenged. Trying to create more and more A-level ready musicians does more to negate musicality than promote it; to understand standards of musicality in relation to the A level is to misunderstand music and its social, human significance. Key stage three music cannot offer an egalitarian route to GCSE and A level because if it did the syllabus would necessarily be something different. The greatest danger to music making is in narrowing our focus on identifying and rewarding those we feel may fit through a wedged open door and enjoy the riches on the other side. This closes as many things as it opens.

    Our only hope is to make key stage three something that is valued in itself. Its own reward. In creating a key stage three music curriculum which offers its own intrinsic value, its own uniqueness and vibrancy, we do more for musicality and the rewards of music making than any doomed efforts to beat a wider pathway to exclusivity.

    Liked by 4 people

    Posted by jkubilius | March 3, 2017, 1:02 am
    Reply to this comment

  12. This blog is all about debate and it is great that we are therefore having it. Don has provided us with some excellent discussion points and I am pleased that he has not watered it down but has given us food for thought.

    Firstly music should be for everyone. It should not be elitist or for the chosen few. In my school setting I like to ensure that I do all I can for the students and make sure that everyone feels welcome. But of course music isn’t for everyone and so I try to avoid getting into a numbers battle. The fact that I have 27 boys in Year 10 taking music is interesting, but without the context you could think that this is either amazing or poor. We are all in such different circumstances and I truly believe that it is impossible to tell a story with just a load of facts and figures.

    What I think is crucial is that we simply share good practice and good ideas with each other and ensure that as a community we are pulling together. I read so much about the arts, funding, cuts, restrictions, ofsted etc etc. We are in a battle in our schools, but yet in the middle of all of that there are some wonderful things going on. If we are music teachers and practitioners can pull together and support each other then that will only serve to improve what we do in our classrooms. How many we have doing this that or the other, or whether we use MF or teach something entirely different is almost irrelevant. What works for one may not work for another.

    I do think that enjoyment is however the key to success and I have always aimed to ensure that students enjoy what I do. But the thing is some of them enjoy challenge. So when I talk of enjoyment in my lessons I am not talking about just doing loads of “fun stuff”. What I have aimed to create is an environment where students enjoy making progress, enjoy making music and enjoy the finer points of music education. Some of my lessons are a bit more out of the box and “exciting” but some are more “traditional” or theoretical. But whenever I teach I want to ensure that students enjoy it, not maybe because they like it, but because they can see how it all fits into the bigger picture.

    This is the same with extra curricular programmes. I believe that a music department should have extra curricular. Yes it is time consuming, but it is entirely essential. In the lead up to Christmas, throughout November and December I was possibly going 18 hours of EC a week. It seems a lot, but it was totally worth it. What I see happening is that as students engage with the musical culture I have created in this school they engage more with their lessons. It is so important that we ensure EC links in with the curriculum and that we are constantly showing students how they can become better listeners, performers and composers through their EC committment.

    I also think that students can be given wider access to instruments if only music departments find the funds to buy say a set of Plastic Trombones. I did just that last year and this year I have enjoyed adding that into my KS3 programme. Funding can be tight, but writing letters to companies to get funding is easy! Putting on events and concerts can bring in funds and I would encourage anyone to do that. I blogged the other week about raising money for your department and I have had lots of emails thanking me for the ideas. I really do understand the pressures of budget cuts trust me, but I have gone out and raised as much as I can.

    But I don’t want this to turn into a look at me I am doing so well. In some ways I am, but in other ways I am just trying to stay afloat. But in the face of that it is crucial that i keep things going for the sake of the students and the future of music in my school. So I try and be positive and celebrate my successes.

    My way is by no means better than anyone else’s way. But it is my way and I have developed what I do and it works for me. I am sure there are so many things I could do better, but I am just trying to keep going. I would love more, but I am also full to capacity and so I just enjoy what I have. With students at the centre of all we do I am sure that each of us can find a pathway for our departments that will really ensure that they get the best. And frankly singing is the most amazing tool for students and it is entirely free, so at the very least we could do more of that.

    Thanks Don for getting us all thinking. I hope that people find this a useful and thought-provoking article and I hope that I continue to think on these things as I go about my day.

    Oh and one final thing is to aim to prepare 100% for GCSE by mentioning it! Then that 7% will be ready and the 93% will at least leave KS3 inspired and in the knowledge that if they want to do music they can. That is the message I want for them.

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by jamesmanwaring | March 3, 2017, 8:58 am
    Reply to this comment

  13. Well. Things seem to be looking up.

    I do want to be critical of you here Don and as I’m the one harping on about respect I may as well do it directly. I think you have criticised a practice without seeing it done well. Go to Leeds, go to Harrogate Grammar and come back and tell us what you’ve learnt. A “not all of you but generally speaking” caveat thrown in at the editorial stage changes nothing. You’ve leapt to unwarranted conclusions.

    The Head of Music in a MF champion school said to me privately once that when people accuse her of dumbing down or not aiming high enough it is really hard for her. She has an elite London music training background and has deliberately stepped away from that high-status comfort zone in order to improve the music education in her school. Part of her, she said, wants to scream “Just who do you think you’re talking to?”. Of course she doesn’t, but why on earth should she have to deal with such foolishness in the first place?

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by LJ Radick | March 3, 2017, 1:38 pm
    Reply to this comment

    • You are welcome to be critical but, at risk of getting engaged in a protracted exchange between the two of us which doesn’t move the discussion forward, I feel that I must respond to this. Whilst I am certain that there are many examples of good practice here—as with any music education approach—I have been very specific with my criticism. Rather than a ‘caveat thrown in at the editorial stage’, my comments deliberately describe the situation found in many schools, where poorly-delivered Musical-Futures-style lessons are hindering pupil progress. Rather than being ‘unwarranted’ or ‘foolish’, my conclusions are based on the lack of musical progress being made by the thousands of pupils experiencing this in those schools; I am afraid that I find that situation unacceptable. I would love to visit some more departments, and will certainly try to do this once coursework season is over; whilst this forum will have moved on by then, I look forward, as ever, to reflecting with the rest of my department on what we might be able to learn.

      Liked by 1 person

      Posted by Don Gillthorpe | March 5, 2017, 7:38 am
      Reply to this comment

      • I appreciate you replying Don. Pretending to agree is not the answer and if that means we have to air differences in public, let’s do it for the sake of the greater good. Otherwise the standard of debate won’t improve.

        For me, for now, your criticisms of MF are not persuasive and are unwarranted. This is because, as you say, “I am fortunate to get out of school and see the work of a range of practitioners, but this is usually in the form of school improvement work where I have been deployed as an SLE to help another music department.”

        You can’t form a balanced opinion of a practice if you only get to see instances of it being done badly. Right now, all you know about MF is how not to do it.

        I respect that you are open to seeing successful instances and would genuine hope we can continue the discussion once you’ve seen more.

        Like

        Posted by LJ Radick | March 5, 2017, 11:32 am

  14. One thing we can all surely agree on is that no one likes to see Musical Futures done badly. The MF team are right when they say that they cannot monitor or control how schools use their materials, but nevertheless when we find out that something is not working as well as it could or should, we should try to look for reasons why this might be.

    And I’m sure Don’s concern is more for seeing music taught well in schools rather than a simple desire to put the boot in. I agree with him when he talks about social justice because in schools where music teaching strategies or pedagogies are not working, students are losing out on an important entitlement.

    As I have said in an earlier post, it is the “Informal Learning” model that gives the most cause for concern. There have always been aspects of this that have troubled me, but it is this Editorial that has prompted me to reflect further and go back to thinking about where this all started – implementing some of the research findings from Lucy Green’s “How Popular Musicians Learn” as a ‘way ahead’ for music education.

    The problem is that in distilling this work into a succinct set of guiding principles, some of the nuances of Green’s research have been lost or distorted along the way.

    Here I think are the basic problems with the approach:

    The first is learning to play by ear. Yes you can learn to play music by ear but you cannot learn to play an instrument by ear. MF seems to conflate the two processes, whereas Green’s book makes it clear that the musicians she interviewed spent a considerable amount of time learning instrumental technique with friends or teachers or from books, they would study charts of chord diagrams, buy sheet music and go and watch more experienced musicians perform and rehearse. So there has to be some essential instrumental learning activity that goes on before getting that first band together.

    The second principle is that student should learn with their friends. This again is a rough approximation of the book’s findings. The way it usually goes is that two friends [often guitar players] would get together with the notion of forming a band. They would then cast around for drummers, bass players and singers in their locality who might want to join a band. Friendships might subsequently form as a result of playing together, but this was rarely a prerequisite. This can become a real problem in a classroom setting, where classes would often split into the existing cliques which might not necessarily make for the best musical groupings. Teachers with any sense would want to take a more pragmatic approach.

    The third principle is this idea of students choosing the music themselves. This is fine if the students want to play bog standard rock/pop songs but serves less well for students whose musical interests lie elsewhere. Not all pop musicians are groups of young white lads thrashing out songs in a garage. For example, in black music styles such as soul music, the church was a more important influence. And more commercial pop music relies on sophisticated arrangements and accompaniments for professional musicians, often reading from music charts. In more contemporary electro and hip hop styles the approach relies more on clever manipulation of sampled sounds. And it was often an experienced pro musician who originally played these sampled sounds. And that’s before we start talking about other musical traditions, which are important to young students in our increasingly multicultural classrooms. Students interested in Bollywood, Roma music etc. are not going to get very far with electric guitars and a drum kit.

    Finally the idea that experienced, qualified teachers should relegate their role to one of facilitator, only being ask to intervene when called upon, is a nonsense…

    In fairness, there are many schools which make MF work successfully by taking a common-sense approach with the above principles and adapting accordingly.

    But now is the time for an overhaul of the approach, not least because the methods outlined in Green’s book are ones recalled by musicians from decades ago. Our culture and our schools have changed significantly since those times. Let’s scrutinise more closely some of the issues I raise and look at ways of refining the approach. As Don and others say, students will need some instrumental skills before they can embark on this type of work and we need to widen the range of musical activity to go beyond the narrow pop/rock approach.

    But good things have come from Musical Futures. This idea that students should be allowed to take more responsibility for their own learning and connect with music outside school is a good one and has done much to invigorate music learning. Let’s work to make it even better!

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by davidashworth | March 5, 2017, 10:09 am
    Reply to this comment

    • Comments below David.

      “One thing we can all surely agree on is that no one likes to see Musical Futures done badly. The MF team are right when they say that they cannot monitor or control how schools use their materials, but nevertheless when we find out that something is not working as well as it could or should, we should try to look for reasons why this might be.”

      Agreed

      “And I’m sure Don’s concern is more for seeing music taught well in schools rather than a simple desire to put the boot in.”
      Well of course. If you thought otherwise you would never have invited him to do the editorial.

      “I agree with him when he talks about social justice because in schools where music teaching strategies or pedagogies are not working, students are losing out on an important entitlement.”
      Uncontroversial and indeed almost a truism?

      “As I have said in an earlier post, it is the “Informal Learning” model that gives the most cause for concern. There have always been aspects of this that have troubled me, but it is this Editorial that has prompted me to reflect further and go back to thinking about where this all started – implementing some of the research findings from Lucy Green’s “How Popular Musicians Learn” as a ‘way ahead’ for music education.”

      OK, though Green is inspirer rather than founding father I think? MF doesn’t hold itself to the task of doing things “as Green said we should”.

      “The problem is that in distilling this work into a succinct set of guiding principles, some of the nuances of Green’s research have been lost or distorted along the way.”

      Is it at that distilling point or is it later on, when the approach is attempted within the school? And is following Green even the MF rationale? They have plenty of evidence of what works now – they don’t need to fall back on popular musicians of the ’90s.

      “Here I think are the basic problems with the approach. The first is learning to play by ear. Yes you can learn to play music by ear”

      Agreed but can we pause and celebrate that? Playing music seems to me a primary goal of a music education and should enable and encourage musical thinking to at least GCSE level standard?

      “but you cannot learn to play an instrument by ear.”

      agree that in most cases it would be artificial to do so. I never give my uke players any paper but the year 6 brings her chord charts with her and passes them over to the younger ones to look at.

      “MF seems to conflate the two processes”

      Are you sure this is MF? Poor teachers, teachers in poor schools, teachers with low expectations?
      I think I recognise something of what you are saying. We tell parents that pupils can try out our instruments for as long as they wish and sometimes the parents are then confused as to why the child has not come home able to play the clarinet.
      Does this go back to the GCSE syllabus problem/issue/debate?

      “,whereas Green’s book makes it clear that the musicians she interviewed spent a considerable amount of time learning instrumental technique with friends or teachers or from books, they would study charts of chord diagrams, buy sheet music and go and watch more experienced musicians perform and rehearse.”
      ok

      “So there has to be some essential instrumental learning activity that goes on before getting that first band together.”
      I would agree you would normally have at least one individual within a classic band who has done some prior work on guitar. Within a mass informal ensemble like mine there are informal section leaders who are now steeped in the techniques we have developed.

      “The second principle is that student should learn with their friends. This again is a rough approximation of the book’s findings. The way it usually goes is that two friends [often guitar players] would get together with the notion of forming a band. They would then cast around for drummers, bass players and singers in their locality who might want to join a band. Friendships might subsequently form as a result of playing together, but this was rarely a prerequisite. This immediately became a problem in a classroom setting, where classes would often split into the existing cliques which might not necessarily make for the best musical groupings. Teachers with any sense would want to take a more pragmatic approach.”

      MF doesn’t advocate interfering with professional judgment like this? Sometimes a clique will be best (for the intimacy) sometimes not…..
      Have poor teacher justified incompetence to Don by saying “MF said to use the friendship groups….”?

      “The third principle is this idea of students choosing the music themselves.”
      I do not allow student choice at primary level save for the inevitable SmokeontheWater and 7NationArmy (which the pupils now perform en masse whether we want them to or not) and have never yet had an adult suggestion that will work other than Happy Birthday. So I will think hard before wading in on this….

      “This is fine if the students want to play bog standard rock/pop songs”
      Or Ode to Joy, or Air on a G String, or Sheep May Safely Graze or Vivaldi’s “Spring” or “In the Mood”. It’s not just rock that can scale up/down in this way. I’m not quite sure what the ingredients are for music that “works” but it isn’t a question of being “rock” or “classical” or whatever.

      “but serves less well for students whose musical interests lie elsewhere. Not all pop musicians are groups of young white lads thrashing out songs in a garage.”
      Agreed and agreed that rock is quite an old musical practice now. This is about Green’s work becoming less relevant perhaps?

      “For example, in black music styles such as soul music, the church was a more important influence.”
      That sounds quite doable but yes the teacher would need some input.

      “And more commercial pop music relies on sophisticated arrangements and accompaniments for professional musicians, often reading from music charts. In more contemporary electro and hip hop styles the approach relies more on clever manipulation of sampled sounds. And it was often an experienced pro musician who originally played these sampled sounds”

      Agreed

      “And that’s before we start talking about other musical traditions, which are important to young students in our increasingly multicultural classrooms. Students interested in Bollywood, Roma music etc. are not going to get very far with electric guitars and a drum kit.”
      fair enough. What were their teachers doing on an MF course in the first place though?

      “Finally the idea that experienced, qualified teachers should relegate their role to one of facilitator, only being ask to intervene when called upon, is a nonsense…”

      I suppose it depends what we mean by facilitiate.
      My only criticism in my MF training was that students were allowed to work with their backs to each other. I had to intervene and I don’t know if that was right or just obnoxious. I suspect in hind-sight that their teacher either knew they would figure out the sight-lines shortly or would have told them himself when he saw them.
      Otherwise, I had always understood “faciliate” to be the kind of expert guidance you get from a truly expert teacher who knows that your spicatto will develop a little more if you just keep doing it at the level you’re at for a few more months but who will watch you don’t slip back and will intervene again later when you reach your next “teachable moment”.
      Of course, if Don has seen poor teachers justifying their inability to know when to step in by saying “MF told me just to faciliate” then I can see why he might end up advising that they are not competent to do MF at present.

      “In fairness, there are many schools which make MF work successfully by taking a common-sense approach with the above principles and adapting accordingly.”
      Absolutely, and this is a basic competence issue surely? I did not find any purist or evangelical element whatsoever in my MF encounters. It was this refreshing celebration of the fact that everyone would find their own way that I liked so much.
      They do have a few “red lines” and rightly so. For instance, if a teacher plans to “begin” their “MF” practice by providing a score, I think they would be told “by all means try it but that is not MF”.

      “But now is the time for an overhaul of the approach, not least because the methods outlined in Green’s book are ones recalled by musicians from decades ago.”
      I watched and participated in their online debates for a couple of years and they seemed really humble and willing to change to me – not rigid at all. I never saw a single instance of someone justifying a practice by Green’s findings, only by each other’s up to date testimonies.

      “Our culture and our schools have changed significantly since those times.”
      Yes, Rock is an old musical practice now. I think my primary school practice suits it well because primary school children are still primarily concerned with their place in their own families and so the “legacy” element (the reaction of parents and grandparents to hearing “their” music) is a big plus at primary level.

      “Let’s scrutinise more closely some of the issues I raise and look at ways of refining the approach.”

      Did someone say scrutiny? Count me in. But it seems to me you’re knocking at an open door. They aren’t dogmatic.

      “As Don and others say, students will need some instrumental skills before they can embark on this type of work”
      disagree somewhat from my own practice. But I would agree they need someone in the room who already has skills and also the ability to pick a guitar off the nearest skip and take it home to tinker with and go to youtube tutorials, etc.

      “and we need to widen the range of musical activity to go beyond the narrow pop/rock approach.”
      Hang on, I’m absolutely sure they’ve been doing this for years! I remember critiquing, rather petulantly as I recall, an early attempt to integrate cellos into the “Passenger” number (it required unrealistically high levels of technique) and proposing an open string bassline instead. There was lots of openness and no resistance. Whilst even the most open family has to shut the front door sometimes to have a priviate conversation, I was left in no doubt that my comments had been taken seriously and that this was an ongoing process of change and learning.

      “But good things have come from Musical Futures.”
      They certainly have and we owe them respect and courtesy.

      “This idea that students should be allowed to take more responsibility for their own learning and connect with music outside school is a good one and has done much to invigorate music learning.”
      Indeed

      ” Let’s work to make it even better!”
      OK let’s get this all out in the open.
      I’m wondering here if bad schools have mistakenly thought that “doing MF” would solve their problems, failing to realise that to do informal learning well is probably harder, not easier, than to do formal learning adequately….. Is this what Don has experienced? Rather like a failing French department assuming that an “immersion” approach would suddenly make everything ok?

      Liked by 2 people

      Posted by LJ Radick | March 5, 2017, 3:24 pm
      Reply to this comment

      • But the roots of Green’s work lie in ‘Music on Deaf Ears’ (1988) setting out a theory of musical meaning (an inherent-delineated interplay) with notions of alienation, celebration, authenticity arising. So the place to start would be to critique this theory.

        Liked by 2 people

        Posted by jfin107 | March 5, 2017, 4:20 pm

      • Hi John

        Critiquing ‘Music on Deaf Ears’ sounds like an excellent idea – go for it!

        What makes MF really interesting is that this is rare attempt [in recent times] to implement research into practice. In times gone by, John Paynter et al would serve as ‘go between’ the two communities of academics and teachers.

        These days it seems harder to bridge that gap as academic publications become harder for teachers to access. Of course, blogs like yours and Martin Fautley’s do help, but wouldn’t it be be good if music teachers could access and have guidance on implementing important research findings more easily?

        We will have an editorial from Chris Walters on this in the near future.

        Like

        Posted by davidashworth | March 6, 2017, 9:00 pm

    • This is a very interesting discussion going on in the comments to this blogpost! I can’t pretend to understand all of it, but am trying to consider the intent within posts using acronyms not familiar to me in Canada (KS3, GSCE, etc.).

      In particular I would like to respond the statement, “Finally the idea that experienced, qualified teachers should relegate their role to one of facilitator, only being ask to intervene when called upon, is a nonsense…”.

      Facilitating students’ learning is the job that I do every day and care deeply about. I don’t feel that I have been “relegated” to that role – rather I feel that I ASPIRE to that role. Student learning is and should be first and foremost my concern and not my own feelings of being superior or important as the teacher-expert.

      Way back in the early 80’s I attended a teacher’s college in Canada that was founded on the core belief in teacher as facilitator. I was attracted to the idealistic notion of supporting constructivist learning in students in this way, but I didn’t have any concrete models of how to put this into practice when teaching music. I had been trained in music with private instruction in the Royal Conservatory method of playing piano, including examinations and a study of theory and classical Western music history. In elementary school we sang and played the recorder and in high school a few us took a traditional band class – exclusively taught with a whole class method of direct teacher instruction. It wasn’t until late in my career that I found Prof. Lucy Green and Musical Futures and it has profoundly changed my teaching for the better. Finally I have many concrete ways to support students in their learning.

      You say, “the idea that students should be allowed to take more responsibility for their own learning and connect with music outside school is a good one and has done much to invigorate music learning”. I would suggest that this goes hand in hand with teachers acting as facilitators. If teachers cling to older paradigms of music instruction, how will students explore the music they are interested in? What room is made for students to make choices in their learning if teachers and departments decide which instruments are available, what sheet music/method books will be purchased and if the only choice for students in a one-size-fits-all style of teaching?

      I am thrilled to be elevated to the role of facilitator in my teaching using the Musical Futures approach. I am also reading and exploring research into Maker Education and Inquiry Learning (in all areas of the curriculum) that also invite teachers to set up the conditions for learning for their students and take on a facilitator role – allowing students to be in the driver’s seat.

      Liked by 3 people

      Posted by Sandie Heckel | March 5, 2017, 6:26 pm
      Reply to this comment

      • Hi Sandie – yes, you make a good point and i should perhaps qualify my remark…

        As LJ says “I suppose it depends what we mean by facilitate”. The facilitation you describe is, of course, what those who are working successfully with the MF model will be doing. Actually, as Chris Philpott observes, it is what all good music teachers will be doing as and when appropriate during the course of a typical teaching day.

        My concern is with those teachers who struggle with MF, where the role of facilitator may be much more passive. There are reasons why this is sometimes the case. It may be that the teacher takes the instruction to stand back and observe a bit too literally. It may be that they struggle with working outside their musical ‘comfort zones’ and feel reticent about advising on rock band instrumental technique and working practices. Or it is sometimes the case that they are that busy running around as surrogate ‘roadies’ helping students set up equipment, coping with faulty leads, broken strings, tuning instruments etc that they have little time for providing the more nuanced facilitation you describe. I’ve been in schools where this is the case. Teachers who come into the profession with a background in rock music seem to cope better with this and in fairness, some teachers from more traditional routes eventually come to terms with these demanding challenges. But I’ve been in schools where teachers struggle with this – and it is this that gives me cause for concern.

        Like

        Posted by davidashworth | March 6, 2017, 6:53 pm

      • The role of the teacher is at stake here. While facilitation is a fundamental role for the teacher to take (for an impressive definition of ‘teacher as facilitator’ see Lee Higgin’s ‘Community Music’), there is another fundamental role to be adopted – teacher as mediator. I mean by this the person who has extensive knowledge of musical-cultural practises and who has a responsibility for placing this before their pupils. This of course would bring us back to what we consider to be the purposes of a music education for all pupils.

        Liked by 3 people

        Posted by jfin107 | March 7, 2017, 2:09 pm

      • Thanks, John. I’m tempted to get into discussion re the various roles required of music teachers, but perhaps we’ll save this for another time? I think it is worth an Editorial discussion of its own….

        Like

        Posted by davidashworth | March 8, 2017, 8:05 am

  15. No one like to see any music teaching done badly – let alone Musical Futures and indeed “when we find out that something is not working as well as it could or should, we should try to look for reasons why this might be” might apply to any pedagogy we choose to adopt in our classroom. At Musical Futures, w see things a little differently, with teachers being escalated to the role of facilitator – drawing on their experience to teach and facilitate excellent music learning. As teachers, we constantly reflect on our own practice and pedagogy – making the necessary refinements and changes as necessary in order to secure the best outcomes for all our students. Musical Futures is no different – we too are working to adapt the approach for the challenges of the modern world – through the development of new resources and approaches such as Just Play and On Cue. We’re not perfect, and don’t claim to be, but our aim is to support the teaching of music with a range of different strategies that teachers can use effectively in their classrooms. If you haven’t attended a Musical Futures training course and would be interested in really delving into what MF is and is trying to do, or if you would like to visit a Musical Futures Champion School, please do get in touch with me: Fran Hannan, Musical Futures Managing Director at fran.hannan@musicalfutures.org

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by Fran Hannan | March 5, 2017, 1:11 pm
    Reply to this comment

  16. Been reading this discussion with great interest. I have not used Musical Futures (MF) in the way it was intended because I have not trained on any MF courses. I know about it a bit from reading their published materials and from the looks of things I may have done similar things in my own teaching but I would not say I apply MF and I imagine there’s a huge amount I could take away with me from attending a course.

    However, I think the primacy of the MF debate is a bit of a distraction from the original posting. Of course, Don Gillthorpe has mentioned MF but it is not the main thrust of the article as I read it (not being an MF devotee means I am not as likely to “respond to the goad” as it were). To me, this article was about Opportunity and Access.

    There is no doubt that the easiest way to get top music grades at GCSE is to take instrument or singing lessons. Most teachers, me included, advanced our way up the ABRSM graded exams alongside our school based education. I am extremely fortunate to have never paid for a single lesson on any of the instruments I play / sing even at University – with the exception of a short period of piano lessons which I took in order to get into 6th form college whereafter I got those for free as well. Today, extra money needs to be found and students don’t necessarily follow the paths we trod – not only is there a wider range of exam boards and instruments with “official” grades, but a lot of students self-teach from the internet. YouTube has a lot to answer for…

    My issue with the new GCSE specifications are many and varied, but at the very heart I totally agree with Don when he demonstrates it is harder to get the top grades without extra lessons. But our subject is not unique – the same goes for PE and membership of teams out of school, dance and extra lessons and even Maths (Kumon and other providers for extra out of hours boosting). My point being, you can probably find a tutor for almost any subject out of school and this will inevitably help you access higher grades in formal exams. You can achieve a high grade in Music without lessons on top of school, but to do so you will definitely have to work on your performing skills in your own time. Is this the fault of the system itself, or is it that we tend to focus on the “more teachable in a group” areas of Listening/Appraising/Criticising and Composition? There is nothing stopping us teaching high standard performing skills in groups – perhaps the MF idea could/should/would help this when applied correctly. So, are we choosing to trust the outside lessons to help with performing skills and focusing on the other areas in school, thus creating our own bias which appears built in?

    I do not see GCSE as harder if you don’t play an orchestral instrument or sing classically. I believe you can get an A*/9/Lollipop if you play any instrument and/or sing in any style. It is designed to be open to all styles of music. Could there be an assumption from teachers that the grade exam route is “best”? I am lucky enough to be a multi-instrumentalist (Hack of all, master of none) and I have spent as much time performing with informal groups as I have in formal – the majority in the contemporary music setting in all likelihood. I have self-taught and formally taught skills. I have actively encouraged students with no formal music training to take the GCSE option and I have many examples of students like that who achieved A or A* in the final exam. It takes hard work, dedication and work-hours, but it is possible. Although there is a greater need for staff notation skills in the new spec courses, I am not sure that a lack of skill in this one area would damage a student’s grade enough to deny them an 8 or 9 – the proof of that pudding will be in the August results in 2018. Good quality music making is rewarded in the GCSE format, no matter what the genre or style.

    Ever since I first got let loose in a studio, I have been an advocate of Music Technology (MT). I have used it time and time again to help those with lower performing skills but a musical brain access the higher grades. I am very, very concerned about the removal of MT based performing skills. In my opinion, you need to be very musical to create a good multitrack recording or a non-robotic sequenced piece. MT does not cover over a lack of skill, it enables those who have not had the privilege of extra lessons to compete on a slightly more level playing field. Some of the work produced by my students using MT has been absolutely stunning, in both performing and composing. Using MT means you can slow things down or have a second chance to get it right, add short bursts of material rather than attempt a long passage of music, edit the sound to make it better in terms of accuracy or quality. Removing this option for students is definitely narrowing the range of students taking the GCSE. It is a definite retrograde step by the DfE and of all the changes it is this one that makes the new spec feel less welcoming to all comers, more elitist. I could see nothing wrong with the rigour of how using MT was assessed within the GCSE – it is comparably difficult to create a high quality 24 track recording and mix as it is to learn a grade 4 piano piece to a good standard. It removes access and areas of enjoyment from the subject.

    Throughout my career I have been a champion of the underdog. I have never even worked in a selective school (two Comprehensives in Grammar ares included) and my fiercely socialist heart and mind simply couldn’t countenance working in a private school. (I add that I am not a member of any political party – I think they’re all self-serving and in essence corrupt, but that’s for a different forum.) I know all the reasons why someone might say that the private sector is better, but I find the assumption pretty abhorrent, to be honest. As a sector we should be fighting for better provision where we are, not looking at greener grass and wishing.

    There is so much to be done, so much to get right, so much talent un-tapped, so many lives that can be changed by Music right here in the public sector, unselective schools that dominate our nation’s educational scene. Yes, many of my students have the latest flashy mobile phone or smart watch yet “can’t afford” music lessons. Yes, the pressure from EBacc is causing measurable shrinkage in our subject. But how many of us have seen confidence, self-belief, pride, joy, sense of achievement burst into young lives as they discover “something [they’re] good at”? How many of us have students who look forward to Music as something they enjoy so much they’re not even aware how much they are being stretched? How many of us don’t get a lunch break as students come into our department spaces to make music for fun in their own time? Concerts, exams, musicals, productions, lessons. We don’t need to go private to see top quality music created and students flourish. It might not be as “classical” or as formal (not that this is impossible or even improbable in the public sector and I am not saying pubic schools should stick to contemporary music [jazz, pop, rock etc.] and leave the “proper” music to the private schools – far from it) but it can be as top quality. Social mobility through music education happens.

    Final thoughts in response to Mr Gillthorpe’s questions:

    1) How do we ensure that pupils can access instrumental or vocal tuition, regardless of personal finances? Often getting hold of an instrument is the biggest problem. We seem to be doing a good line in acquiring second-hand ones at the moment; we also use Pupil Premium money to help FSM and E6 pupils with tuition fees.

    This is a real tough one. The obvious answer is to get school funding sorted, but that requires a head teacher / Principal / SLT / Governors who is/are musically minded to be generous and can see the good it does to the whole enough to keep investing in it. The “Take it away” scheme and “Amnesty” instrument hand ins can get access for some, musical charities and organisations like “El Sistema UK” can provide for the lucky few. Parents tend to invest if their offspring gets passionate. So instead of desperately scratching around for money, maybe we should be focused more on fostering the passion? I’ve said it earlier: it’s amazing how many kids have the latest tech but “can’t afford” music lessons. Perhaps (some) money is there, but it is currently being diverted to the bank accounts of Apple, Google, Sony & Microsoft?

    2) Are enjoyment and progress mutually exclusive? Surely it must be possible to stretch and challenge pupils whilst having fun at the same time?

    Music reflects life. Therefore it is surely impossible to be enjoyable all the time? In my own experience as a student and as a teacher I have found many occasions when enjoyment and progress go hand in glove. But there are times when hard graft and perseverance are needed and the fun part tends to be replaced by determination. If a teacher is trying to make every lesson fun, then surely they are misrepresenting Music? To be fun all the time is to be disingenuous about the subject. You’d end up with vapid, spurious muzak without pathos, soul or meaning. Music is more than that, deeper than that, more worthy than that. I wonder how many times we let students see how much music means to us as human beings on a personal level. The serious risk of making your own thoughts and feelings vulnerable because you are sharing from the heart, not just the head. Music goes way beyond entertainment and our music tuition should reflect and incorporate that too.

    3) What is the best way to ‘have your cake and eat it’ with KS3 music? How can we properly prepare the 7% for GCSE Music whilst engaging the 93%?

    I think I’ve answered this a bit as my answer to question 2. But for me, music at key stage three has always had a dual purpose: (1) to prepare for the GCSE and beyond and (2) to equip students musically for life beyond school. Music is important for most people – there are very few individuals who don’t like it or have some sort of connection with some sort of music, be it a style, genre or even a single song / piece. I’ve always planned KS3 with both of these in mind. Yes, there are skills to learn to be able to access key stages 4 and up. But students need to be able to understand a little of the power of music, how it works, how it can change things, manipulate or suggest. An example of this would be teaching “music and the moving image”. Skills here would include some technology based stuff along with musical things like rhythm, tempo, modality/tonality, orchestration / timbre and many more. But there is also the “life-skill” side of things – notice how changing the music changes the mood, see what the director/producer wants you to think about, notice how the music is going in the backdoor to manipulate your thinking whilst you focus on the pictures etc.

    Education and awareness of why and how in music can lead to fostering open minded attitudes to try something new, being tolerant and understanding the unfamiliar, appreciating difference in a positive way, destruction of stereotype, intolerance and assumption – all absolutely crucial to life beyond school. If you’re building all that into your KS3 programme, I think you should be looking after the 93% as well as the 7%…

    Liked by 3 people

    Posted by mattallen1 | March 6, 2017, 2:27 pm
    Reply to this comment

  17. I think Don has raised some valuable questions here.

    Access to instrumental and vocal tuition? I found that local music charities were worth approaching on behalf of individual children, along with bidding for Pupil Premium funding and then supporting/monitoring those children to ensure that the money was being appropriately spent. Helping peris to best support these children is also important: if they are not aware of the ‘bigger picture’, communication can easily fail and, along with it, the child’s sense of musical self-worth.
    Music technology is also key to this discussion, with many of my former pupils developing considerable musical skill and creativity using free or cheap online resources and apps. I wonder if we should also look to embrace newer models, such as Skype lessons and online tutorials? Perhaps someone with more experience of them would be able to comment about the pros and cons.

    Enjoyment and progress are definitely not mutually exclusive! I disagree with the post that I interpreted, perhaps wrongly, as arguing that having fun in music equated to it being a ‘doss’ lesson. We also need to be clear that ‘fun’ is not only the realm of popular music, or of informal learning. But I do think we should be careful with the word ‘progress’. Whose definition of progress? And at what speed? This is of course made muddier by the difficulties (discussed previously on this site) of describing music and assessing it.

    As for the 7/93 split, this has been on my mind a great deal lately. I agree that all our pupils should leave KS3 feeling capable of approaching further study in a format that engages them. And I also agree with the point about GCSE/A Level being increasingly, possibly deliberately, exclusive. This, I feel, is where the problem lies. If we worked with our pupils to design personalized music learning pathways, I imagine that very few would look like the GCSE/A Level model – and that these models offer little opportunity for understanding of the music labour market. I suspect that a lot of colleagues in other subjects feel the same way, too, and also share Matt’s excellent point that education should promote understanding the unfamiliar and destruction of stereotype. Do these two reasons help to explain why increasing numbers of independent schools are moving towards IB or other alternative qualifications. And should we perhaps be looking outwards to other subject communities to see if similar questions to Don’s are being asked there?

    But I’m rambling: returning to the cake dilemma, I think the opportunities for independent listening and composing projects, particularly in Year 9, are really helpful. I generally found that if children were given the time and resources to explore ideas that interested them, they made discoveries that they were proud of. Of course, time and resources are a challenge in themselves, and there are plenty of time where I didn’t get this right. The absolute worst thing to do, I feel, is ‘to study all the set works in KS3 so that they know what they are getting’. How sad, to reduce the musical world to a handful of pieces!

    My own experience of implementing MF approaches in two schools has been largely positive, and I continue to believe that the organization is doing lots of valuable work with children and music educators. I think LJ hit the nail on the head, though, when she said “I’m wondering here if bad schools have mistakenly thought that “doing MF” would solve their problems, failing to realise that to do informal learning well is probably harder, not easier, than to do formal learning adequately.” It was never an ‘easy’ option for me or my colleagues, and required a lot of planning in terms of our own musical development and also in maintaining equipment/setting up for lessons. Also, following on from comments about immersion, successful class lessons resulted in demand for informal extra-curricular opportunities – which is great, but which requires different skills and resources from, say, directing a wind band rehearsal.

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by alisonbutlermusic | March 7, 2017, 3:19 am
    Reply to this comment

    • Alison makes a good point:

      “I wonder if we should also look to embrace newer models, such as Skype lessons and online tutorials?”

      Part of the hidden costs of lessons are to do with the geography – getting the instrumental teacher to the school or the student to the teaching centre. This is a particular challenge in large/remote rural counties and music organisations such as NYMAZ are working to address this, using a videoconferencing approach. I helped prepare a case study for inspire music, which contains links to a report which looks at the pros and cons. http://www.inspire-music.org/case-studies/67-connect-resound

      Other ways of keeping costs down? Three things – I think that shared lessons can be just as effective as one to one and there is research to back this up. I’m also not convinced that lessons need to be weekly. If students are motivated and are given sufficient amount of work to prepare, I think many could keep going for 2-3 weeks before a further lesson is required. A blend of face to face/online tutorial is yet another approach…. Hubs and music organisations would be well advised to explore this avenue, as a way of making their services more affordable.

      Like

      Posted by davidashworth | March 10, 2017, 12:37 pm
      Reply to this comment

      • A final thought – we have talked about embracing newer models to alleviate tuition costs, and I’m now thinking about offsetting costs of instruments.

        In these challenging times, there is a tendency to gravitate towards the cheaper instruments, such as guitars, keyboards, ukuleles, beginner violins, flutes etc. Instruments such as the bari sax [as featured in last month’s discussion] bass clarinets, bassoons etc are not likely to get a look in. Yet it is these instruments that can add such welcome colour and depth to any student ensemble.

        Perhaps one way of addressing this is for the school to build up a collections of these more esoteric instruments which are loaned free of charge to students whilst they attend that school. This would be similar to the typical brass band model where the instruments are owned by the band and made available to their players. Of course, the significant costs of these instruments was covered by the sponsorship provided by wealthy industrialists and factory owners. So schools would need to find a wealthy sponsor or group of sponsors who would be willing to underwrite the costs involved. We already seem some schools with dedicated libraries which have been provided by philanthropists. If it works for books, why not for ‘libraries’ of musical instruments? The collection could be complemented by instrument amnesties, targeted fundraising etc.

        I remember many years ago a music department receiving a largish donation from a benefactor, which the head of music spent on a bassoon. At the time I thought this was a bit short-sighted but, thirty years on, I have been proved wrong. Many students have benefitted from having access to this instrument over this time and have gone on to buy and play their own bassoons later in life. And of course the various school ensembles have benefitted considerably from having access to this glorious sound …

        Like

        Posted by davidashworth | March 20, 2017, 8:18 am

  18. I wouldn’t go to an independent school because:

    – they aren’t as good at music as my school
    – the intensive need to market distorts everything about the education offered
    – it’s much more intellectually challenging in my school

    In my town, the independent schools are where you go when your state school contract didn’t get renewed. You take a pay cut and go private till you can get back in.

    So whilst I engage with a couple of particularly good music teachers, what their curriculum is or isn’t doesn’t persuade me of anything in particular.

    Like

    Posted by LJ Radick | March 7, 2017, 9:17 am
    Reply to this comment

  19. @John Finney, you have said before that MF traces its lineage back to Music on Deaf Ears not How Popular Musicians Learn and you’ve pulled us up on this again in this discussion.

    Could you say a bit more about this please. I have read Green’s books (Deaf Ears, Popular Musicians, ..and the School) and my initial impression was that the HPML research was being applied direct in schools.

    Like

    Posted by LJ Radick | March 7, 2017, 9:45 am
    Reply to this comment

    • MF was instigated by David Price in partnership with Youth Music and the DfES Innovations Unit (2005). One of its three original strands cohered with Lucy Green’s work on How Popular Musicians Learn (2001) and its outflowing into Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy (2008) presenting a model of informal learning becoming ‘In at the Deep End’ which seems to be what is in many minds when MF is spoken of. (There have been developments!) In ‘A New CP…’ the issue of musical meaning features significantly (delineated: inter-sonic) and thus the link with Green’s ‘Music on Deaf Ears’ (1988) is underlined as it is in Green’s Professorial Lecture (sorry, can’t lay my hands on it at the moment). This is a theory of musical meaning explaining the nature of musical experience. It may be that some would prefer to work from a theory of musical knowledge rather than a theory of musical meaning. Although it may be that there is no knowledge without meaning.

      PS I do not profess to be an authority on either the work of Lucy Green or MF.

      Like

      Posted by jfin107 | March 7, 2017, 1:16 pm
      Reply to this comment

      • John, I remember back when the Herts pathfinder MF projects were being set up, the teachers involved spent a day with Lucy working through lots of this. I was one of them, a head of department and AST firmly grounded in my comfort zone of music teaching modelled mainly on what I had experienced on teaching practice. I lacked any real thought or understanding of the potential of what those kids in front of me could achieve in the music classroom and there weren’t forums like this one to hear about the wealth of information out there which I think we should all be thankful for whether we agree with what is said or not!

        I’m also doing a huge amount of reflecting on the MF journey as I’m moving on from the core team at the end of March. Endings I think are always a fantastic opportunity to think back to the beginning and relive and reinterpret some of the journey so I’ve very much enjoyed reading this thread, the comments and watching it unfold.

        One aspect that stayed with me following that initial session with Lucy was very much the idea of ‘encluturation’ and the relevance of musics that students are surrounded by to their own identity both as appreciators of music and as musicians themselves.

        That initial meeting was nearly 12 years ago now and I may have slightly misremembered the specifics so huge apologies for that!

        But it is really good to be reminded that there is more to the initial pedagogy than just that which eventually underpinned what became known as informal learning in a MF context. Perhaps this is because the original 5 principles of informal learning are a little more tangible in the context of classroom practice than some of the other thinking around knowledge and meaning (as usual you have made my mind bend a little grappling with this which I will mull over as I walk to the station on a lovely spring day!)

        Perhaps I will also take my copy of A new CP with me on the train this afternoon to have a bit of a re-read.

        How is this relevant to the original post? Well I think it goes back to that idea of teachers really defining why and how they teach what they teach which I think underpins much of the original post. Whether the resulting opinions are different and diverse or we all end up agreeing doesn’t matter as long as outcomes have been carefully through in the context of making music accessible to as many students in our schools as possible.

        Liked by 1 person

        Posted by annagower | March 7, 2017, 2:27 pm

  20. This is a fairly long but limited response to Don’s article – so pour a glass of wine and hopefully you might read to the end.

    Don writes a provocative article and, reading the fulsome responses, has raised a number of important issues. But for the purpose of this response, I will stay with the first question he posed at the end of his piece “How do we ensure that pupils can access instrumental or vocal tuition, regardless of personal finances?”

    On the face of it, this is a simple question, but it has a hugely complex context and meaning and challenging potential solution(s).

    Over the last years one of the rallying calls from the music education sector (amongst many, many rallying calls) has been that every child should have the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument.

    And why would anyone disagree?

    In 2011 The Importance of Music – A National Plan for Music Education (note “A Plan” not “The Plan”) stated that “Children from all backgrounds and every part of England should have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument; to make music with others; to learn to sing; and to have the opportunity to progress to the next level of excellence if they wish to.”

    Contrast this with 2000 when David Blunkett, the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pledged that, “..over time, all pupils in primary schools who wished to do so would have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument.”

    The two statements imply different meanings – a difference which continues to be overlooked by some. The difference is in the use of the phrase “wish to”.

    It’s a powerful difference. The former infers that ALL children WILL learn and those “who wish to” will continue. The latter infers those who “wish to”, will learn. Some may say that this is pure semantics. But….

    We seem to have ended up with a national provision of “first access into instrumental teaching” in England, borne of political and ideological manoeuvrings, that fulfils neither the intentions of “A Plan” nor Blunkett’s pledge. A provision that is as varied and variable from one local authority area to the next as to be almost a national patchwork quilt with everyone seemingly doing things differently, or at best slightly differently. A provision where it seems that “access” is the most important priority and in some cases the only priority.

    Worse still, a provision that is held to account (and assessed and judged) through meaningless and irrelevant data on “participation” by an organisation that distributes government funding but has (despite its assertions to the contrary) little real understanding about what education is, what schools are or how they work, or what learning and progress over time entails.And by the way doesn’t appear to count any pupils in its data who may have continued learning from an initial first access setting that isn’t a whole class setting. Bizarre.

    As a former chief protagonist of the then “Wider Opportunities” and now “Whole Class Ensemble Teaching” (WCET) I have become deeply worried about the political, financial and educational expediences that have, together, conspired to produce a whole generation of young people and their schools for whom a year’s worth of whole class teaching has become:

    a) their only opportunity to “experience” (not learn) an instrument and with little or no provision beyond
    b) a tick box exercise for schools whose senior leaders have little or no understanding, empathy or care for music education and in particular musical progress and standards and
    c) a scheme from which lamentable numbers of young people “continue” into higher levels or progress and attainment

    Yes! There are any number of superb WCET schemes that DO give young people an amazing first access into instrumental learning AND provide a sound foundation of general musical skills, concepts and knowledge upon which progression routes and pathways can be built and pursued. There are some great examples in schools and hubs that I have had the recent pleasure of visiting and working in.

    But all too often young people are unable to “choose” the instrument in WCET. Too often the WCET programme is not flexible enough to meet emerging individual needs. Too often the programmes are geared to the lowest common denominator (either in time for the programme, or assumptions on young people’s aptitudes, skills, wishes). And worst of all, too often the programmes lead nowhere – not even for those “who wish” to progress – because the school is unable to afford it, or parents can’t afford it, or it isn’t a priority, or Ofsted is coming, or the headteacher just isn’t interested, or “it’s not for our school”.

    Pupils “accessing” music, and specifically instrumental learning, but with no prospect of making progress, nor (for the schools’ part) understanding what musical progress looks like, feels like and above all else, sounds like, is one of the most colossal educational bankruptcies of the 21st century.

    Over three decades ago I led the writing of schemes of work for a Music Service. (I know – quite heretical at the time!) In the preface to the schemes I wrote an introduction which included the phrase “THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT INGREDIENT IN INSTRUMENTAL LEARNING SUCCESS IS……DESIRE”

    I won’t try to define “desire” here, but only to say it is a unique part of that magical human chemistry that occurs when a person is inspired to aspire to something on a higher plane. It rarely happens instantaneously from one event or experience (though it can!), it might grow over time. In musical terms it might mean an encounter with a charismatic performer (young or old) in a live performance, or listening to a track or tracks from a recording or being taught by a brilliant teacher, and more likely a combination of those….. you get the drift. What ever it is, it can disappear as quickly or as slowly as it appears. But whatever it is, and for as long as it lasts, we have a duty to spot it, nurture it, support it, lead it, guide it – at an individual level.

    I’m not arguing here for abandoning principles of access and/or inclusion. Far from it. Every child deserves a high-quality, best quality music education, What I am arguing, and to go back to Don’s question, is for a re-think of how the nation spends its resources, time, thinking and effort (including £70m of Department for Education grant) so that we:

    a) give every child aged 0-11 a, high quality school music education – one that really teaches essential, fundamental musical skills, concepts, creativity and knowledge consistently, progressively to a high standard throughout. One that is tangible, real, felt, learned and experienced. Above all musical and skills-based to the highest possible levels.. Not one that sits in the rhetoric of the so-called “National Curriculum” which appears to be as meaningful and impactful as a scheme of work in bee-keeping in some schools. Frankly I’m tired with the well-meaning drivel that comes out of the Department for Education (and the “all things to all pupils” waffle espoused by politicians and some theorists). None of it is real or ever likely to be real. Because the will isn’t there and neither is the workforce to deliver it skillfully and successfully.

    Can you imagine a country in which EVERY primary/special school took music as seriously as the “core subjects”?And where every child was taught with the same passion, skill, consistency and regularity as in maths? To be honest this, for me, would be THE golden fleece from which many developments would spring.(I once asked my Director of Education to give me the money that was being spent on “literacy” and “numeracy” strategies to spend on instrumental education – I almost persuaded him but not even he, a cultured sophisticated educationist ,would shy away from the pervasive influence and sometimes caustic impact of Ofsted.)

    b) work closely with schools, music services, hub partners, parents, young people to identify young peoples’ “desire”. I’m not talking here about concepts of “talent” or “ability” or “aptitude”. I’m specifically referencing that illusive trait that might be the foundation upon which “talent”/”ability”/”aptitude” might sit. Whilst music is, arguably, a physical property it is fundamentally an emotional construct that underpins individual engagement with it. We should be recognising it as such a responding to it on an individual pupil level. We can teach whole classes of ukulele for as long as we like. But in the end it’s like teaching whole class javelin. It leads to no where for most children, except for playing the ukulele or throwing the javelin. As laudable as these skills are, is this really what music education is? (And believe me – I’ve seen it – for some pupils this is the beginning and the end of their music education.) I’m fervently NOT advocating a return to the discredited Bentley-tested kind of model of access. I am suggesting that a model based on young people’s aspirations and latent and/or manifest desire to learn is a way in.

    c) invest in an altogether different model of progression. One that recognises, values, validates and supports “desire”. It’s not an age-related concept. It can happen at any time. I know of a former principal cellist of a very well known professional symphony orchestra who only started to learn the cello at the age of 17. He was consumed with “desire” to learn, borne of a succession of experiences over many years. If we treat young people always as those with potential, unleashed by desire, we might see many more young people pursuing musical paths that they, and we, hadn’t imagined. Investing in a model where this can be recognised and valued and resourced is an imperative.

    d) work with the ever increasing number of charitable organisations out there to invest in a national programme of financial support for young musicians. We have great political support across the political parties. But £70m is a mere tip of the iceberg for what is needed. There are any number of brilliant charities who do great work. Schools, music services and many other organisations do sterling work to raise money. What’s missing is the emotional fervour of a national “Olympic” style initiative to raise the large sums that are necessary to answer Don’s question of “….regardless of personal finances”. This isn’t about elitism, but about a fervour to instil, inculcate, feed, nurture and support young peoples’ appetites and “desires” to take music to their highest levels – whatever those levels might be. They are neither absolute nor pre-determined.

    I know – these all might be lovely fluffy aspirations. But I genuinely believe that finding a construct that supports young people who “wish to” and have a “desire” to learn a musical instrument, whenever or however that desire manifests itself and matching them with the sounds, both physical and ethereal, that they aspire to,along with the educational “space” and the brilliant teaching needed and the resources required, might be better for children, for music, for teachers, for schools, for education.

    Coda – I’ve absolutely nothing against the javelin. I was rubbish at all sports, except javelin. It was the only athletics event in which I wasn’t ridiculed. Actually I could throw it a very long way. But it didn’t give me any understanding of high jump, or hurdles or hockey. (I know – hockey is different. I still have injury).

    Liked by 4 people

    Posted by nigelmtaylor | March 8, 2017, 12:55 am
    Reply to this comment

  21. And Don’s second question: Are enjoyment and progress mutually exclusive? Surely it must be possible to stretch and challenge pupils whilst having fun at the same time?

    I observed a year 7 music lesson today. There was enjoyment and progress to note and stretch and challenge. It was a performing lesson. Pupils worked on keyboards seeking to master a ‘classic’ song that they had sung and would be singing in a school concert. Their teacher aimed for all pupils to gain facility on keyboard. It was thought that this would equip the pupils to cope well with GCSE. It was a girls’ school and the girls’ singing development over Key Stage 3 was another way in which continuity could be ensured.

    While the pupils had an annotated copy of the music being learnt, they were essentially leaning to play by ear, commonly accepted as one of the foundations on which musical literacy is built.

    I may have contributed to answering Don’s third question too.

    Is it helpful to set out specific examples as above in this discussion?

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by jfin107 | March 8, 2017, 5:18 pm
    Reply to this comment

  22. “How do we ensure that pupils can access instrumental or vocal tuition, regardless of personal finances?”

    Clearly we can’t unless we get a different government and truthfully why should money be spent forcing those who don’t want to learn an instrument to learn one?

    I like the idea of “desire” being the trigger. What about a personal budget for every child for 30m 1-1 extra-curricular tuition in a subject of their choice whether that be javelin, cello or whatever? So – to go back to Don’s original header – why not treat every child “as if” they were rich and could do their chosen extra-curricular activity throughout childhood and adolescence?

    Going back to the curriculum, I would like to propose that you do need to “access” an instrument to have an excellent music education (because of the music-coming-from-the-body issue) but you do not need to learn to play one skilfully to have an excellent music education.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by LJ Radick | March 9, 2017, 8:55 am
    Reply to this comment

  23. I hope Don won’t mind if I throw in a thought or two provoked in me by reading this blog this morning

    https://musicteachermusingsblog.wordpress.com

    This would be a different future for music education, a different structure in which GCSE Music would be irrelevant, vastly reformulated or dissolved.

    I know only a little about music education in North America. I do know that it is struggling to revitalise its structures and to break out of its moribund ensemble tradition. But as far as I know there is no equivalent to GCSE music. Musical culture in North America is as vibrant as the United Kingdom and its musical scholarship leads the world. There seem to be plenty enough distinguished North American musicologists, ethnomusicologists, sociomusicologists ..

    Ok, so difficult to envisage and it would for some be ideologically unappetising. But something to awaken the discussion from its slumbers and repetitions perhaps.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by jfin107 | March 12, 2017, 9:21 am
    Reply to this comment

    • Having read the latest posts from Matt and Nigel above and now the one from John [with the link to Emily’s excellent blog], I have been thinking on similar lines. Wouldn’t it be great if we were able look beyond the current strictures and structures and reimagine how music education might work in an ideal world.

      Very tricky of course, because music teachers are tied by whole school policies. Some seem to have some flexibility and autonomy in how they run their departments but there are real constraints. However, in schools like Emily’s, which subscribe to a Project Based Learning model, there is much more leeway which is reflected in the quality and diversity of the work that goes on there. I included a case study from her school in the inspire-music collection. Take a look here http://www.inspire-music.org/case-studies/61-what-does-sound-look-like

      Interesting to note that David Price, founding father of Musical Futures, and teachers such as Martin Said were exploring working in this way in schools in Northumberland and Doncaster. Similar models for more flexible and innovative approaches to how we structure education can be found in the various strands to the Whole Education movement http://www.wholeeducation.org . If I were looking to embark on a teaching career, I would certainly be gravitating to one of these schools – where music has the potential to really flourish. However, although the movement is growing slowly, it is still the case that most schools still feel the need to fall in line with the seemingly arbitrary diktats from DfE. And diktats, an order or decree imposed by someone in power without popular consent, is certainly the right word here.

      So there are limitations imposed on music departments but even so, those teachers who have built up strong relationships with enlightened school heads, can often find there is room for negotiation if a case for change can be justified. For example, I know of at least one school which has a flourishing KS4 department which does not work towards formal examinations.

      A final thought. There is much excitement and interest in the newly formed College of Teaching which is seeking to put teachers back in control of teaching. Are any of our music organisations talking to them? If not, why not?

      Like

      Posted by davidashworth | March 13, 2017, 6:15 pm
      Reply to this comment

      • Picking up on one thing you mentioned David. I guess in my school I have a degree of freedom. But that has been learnt over several years. I would urge music teachers to look at how they can embed what they do into the framework and life of the school such that they become valuable to the school! It takes time, but I have shown the school and now the academy of schools what music can offer.

        Like

        Posted by jamesmanwaring | March 13, 2017, 7:00 pm

      • As a footnote, I note that many subject associations are now ‘Partner Organisations’ with the College of Teaching. The list here https://www.chartered.college/membership/partner-organisations They say: Subject teaching associations engage daily with thousands of teachers and can offer their support to the College with their reach, their expertise and their understanding of what makes a vibrant community of practice in the world of education. Interesting to note that no music organisations are represented….

        The College go on to say: The collective reach of the subject associations is remarkable. Subject associations currently reach thousands of schools, tens of thousands of teachers and thereby benefit millions of pupils. Oh well….

        Like

        Posted by davidashworth | March 14, 2017, 10:03 am

  24. It may be useful John to describe the repetitions? I think you mean in the cultural discussion about music ed rather than this thread in particular?

    Like

    Posted by LJ Radick | March 12, 2017, 7:48 pm
    Reply to this comment

  25. No doubt that the thread is what many, many find helpful to read, seeing themselves at times, wondering about how their practice is and might be. The repetitions are the tensions that beset us and which there may be a longing to be released from. The way we conceive of culture, music, children, society, education etc. make for what may be irreducible tensions. Sometimes blue sky thinking like what if no GCSE can help.

    Like

    Posted by jfin107 | March 13, 2017, 6:35 am
    Reply to this comment

  26. What is the best way to ‘have your cake and eat it’ with KS3 music? How can we properly prepare the 7% for GCSE Music whilst engaging the 93%?

    I think the main thing that needs to change in curriculum music education from KS2-KS3 is the expectations of what students can and can’t do by the end of year 9.

    Take my privileged situation, from Y3-Y9 students have 2.5 hrs of music lessons per fortnight. Over those 6 years of music lessons what should/could realistically be achieved? In this situation I feel that every student should be able to get to the end of year 9 being able to play an instrument. What I mean by “play” is that they can play either the keyboard or the guitar, they can play chord sequences, bass lines and melodies.

    If they are in the 7% that choose GCSE music they then will be in a position to develop composition ideas on an instrument and over the two years of the GCSE course can learn a piece of music for solo performance that gets them a grade (even if 1-1 lessons are not an option).

    If they are in the 93% not choosing music then they will have finished KS3 music being able to play an instrument.

    I think that’s having the cake and eating it.

    To achieve this we might have to stop teaching a lot of other things, perhaps reggae, gamelan and film music might have to go. We also might have to find more ways of effectively teaching whole classes instruments (but there are plenty of ways out there… I’d opt for Musical Futures JustPlay).

    If we were talking about swimming lessons, given the same amount of time from KS2 through KS3 would it be acceptable for so many students to not be able to swim?

    Liked by 2 people

    Posted by shbmusic | March 13, 2017, 11:59 pm
    Reply to this comment

  27. swimming is one thing though isn’t it? like knowing the fingering of a descant recorder.

    music teaching isn’t. it’s like sport.

    To adapt your analogy: “If we were talking about sports lessons, given the same amount of time from KS2 through KS3 would it be acceptable for so many students to not be able to sport?”

    so….. would it be ok if the poor kids only played one kind of rugby and the rich kids only played another?
    would it be ok if some kids danced but couldn’t catch a ball. can they still sport?
    would it matter if a kid played sport at home but couldn’t talk about sport in a thoughtful way?
    which type of pitch and specialism should the school invest in? Cricket for all? There’s a strong social justice case for concentrating on cricket. Or football for all? There’s a strong case for that too. Should the sports of groups with a history of exclusion (ie women) be taught to all or is that artificial and ridiculous since men are strong enough not to need to play netball?

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by LJ Radick | March 14, 2017, 9:32 am
    Reply to this comment

    • I guess you’re right, swimming might not be the best analogy! But I think you’ve hit upon something, the inequality in sport and music is similar and I wonder if GCSE & A-Level PE suffers equally because of that.

      Ultimately though I think it should be expected that every child can play an instrument by the end of Y9. If that instrument is the keyboard or guitar even better! Then they will also be able to play chords which is really helpful if they want to compose.

      If they leave music at Y9 feeling comfortable sitting down at a piano, picking up a guitar, looking on the internet for the chords of a song and trying to play it or creating their own music that would be great. Being able to do these things will also equip them well for GCSE.

      We can’t teach everything we want to teach, we just don’t have the time. We only have time for the most important things. For me that’s being able to play the keyboard or guitar and develop basic composition/arranging skills. I think this is achievable for all by the end of KS3.

      Liked by 3 people

      Posted by shbmusic | March 15, 2017, 6:30 am
      Reply to this comment

  28. A thought-provoking and interesting blog from Mr Gillthorpe here. Having sat and discussed this with one of my mentors today (I am currently 1/3 of the way through my PGCE year having had 5 years as a freelance singer and conductor), it is obvious in the current climate that music and the arts is being sidelined and it is a fight to keep music alive in state schools. So what is the answer?

    Some music teachers have opted into the Music Futures programme that aims to engage children in their music lessons by creating music with peers on a chosen instrument. Splitting classes up into groups and placing them in practice rooms surely reduces their contact time with a music professional?! Mathematics teachers don’t send group of children off to different rooms with a text book and ask them to ‘just give it a go’ without proper guidance so it must be an injustice to the children to do so in their music lessons, surely? I understand the idea of ‘getting children on board’ but once a president is set, it’s hard to deviate away from this and a child runs into far too many hurdles, after potentially taking the course under false pretence given the KS3 teaching, when undertaking their GCSE’s and their musical understand/ reading is severely lacking.

    It is highly unfortunate that music tuition and standards of music making are becoming more and more polarised between the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’ but surely providing each child with an equal opportunity to learn and develop their skills throughout KS3, thus considering KS4 music when it comes to their options is the answer? Children like to be stretched in their schooling – read back to Don Gillthorpe’s first blog (Feb 2016) – and this doesn’t need to come at the cost of equipping them with all the necessary skills for KS4/5 by ‘making music fun’.

    Enjoyment and progress are often linked in education so why should music be any different? Charitable donations and seeking extra funding may help to equip a department (which of course takes significant amounts of background work) but as soon as a department stops banging on that door, it begins to lose it’s standing in a school. Putting ideas to the forefront of people’s minds, by constantly asking and believing, helps to paint an image to them that music and the arts is important. Without this push, how do those people not fortunate enough to have instrumental lessons paid for experience the same standards of music making and opportunities?!

    Like

    Posted by Brad Thornborough-Barlow | November 21, 2019, 4:59 pm
    Reply to this comment

  29. Couldn’t agree with you more, Tom. I am also yet to see MF delivered in a way that prepares children for GCSE Music. A potentially wonderful idea on the surface and, at first glance, must look impressive however from what I have seen, and how I have seen it delivered, MF lacks the substance and guidance to equip children with a well-rounded set of skills. Your scheme of learning looks like a much more grounded, yet still engaging way, to deliver the KS3 curriculum.

    Like

    Posted by Brad Thornborough-Barlow | November 22, 2019, 7:27 am
    Reply to this comment

Leave a comment

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Meta