This latest blog post has been something of a long time in coming - but it's involved rather a lot of thinking, reading, and thinking again! It takes the form of a talk which I presented at a symposium yesterday.
What is Music education for?
A talk given in symposium
at Cambridge University, 21st March 2015
What is Music education for?
When it was suggested that this be the title for what I am
going to speak about today, I couldn’t help but notice that it’s a rather big
question – and one that I certainly don’t expect to answer in what I am about
to say. However, it is a rather important question, and one that we should
probably all think about regularly.
Before I tell you why I am currently thinking about it,
though, I’d like to reminisce about the first assignment that I completed on my
PGCE course, which was titled ‘the place of Music in the secondary school.’ When
I wrote my assignment, in 2009, one of the most recent documents that I looked
at was the 2004 Music Manifesto, through which the then-Labour government
committed to providing musical opportunities for all. I contrasted this with
the low take-up of Music post-Key Stage 3, the reports from teachers and music
education professionals of having to frequently justify the value of Music to
sceptics and the argument that by promoting just one rather fixed view of
Music, the government’s so-called support might actually be detrimental to the
wider idea of Music education. I’m not sure much has changed!
A significant proportion of my assignment was to do with the
‘soft’ and ‘hard’ justifications for music in the curriculum - terms coined by
Chris Philpott in 2008[1]
which hopefully ring some bells. The ‘soft’ justifications are those which rely
on the notion of music being ‘good for us’ in some way, while the ‘hard’
justifications rely on an understanding of the diverse meanings and cultural
significances that are inherent in music itself. Philpott argues that these are
the more valid reasons for teaching Music – although he also suggested that teachers
often fail to teach music in a way that really embraces this. I went on to look
at Constantijn Koopman’s idea of ‘extrinstic’ and ‘intrinsic’ justifications of
music – which is fairly similar, but perhaps a little less value-laden in its
terminology than ‘soft’ and ‘hard’. Koopman’s 1996 article ‘Why Teach Music at
School?’[2]
discusses the effect of music on other forms of cognition – i.e. the Mozart
effect and all that sort of thing – as well as the idea that artistic, and
musical, education is necessary for personal development – particularly in
terms of aesthetic appreciation and understanding. Had I been writing the
assignment more recently, I imagine that I would have cited Susan Hallam’s very
recent (2015) report on ‘the power of music’[3],
which cites neuroscientific research as proof that musical training has a
significant effect on language skills, memory, special reasoning, IQ test
scores and even personality. The problem with all of these ‘extrinsic’ justifications,
though, is that they are not exclusive to music – and there are many other ways
to develop the same skills. Going back to Koopman, he goes on to suggest that
music’s ‘intrinsic’ value – the enjoyment and appreciation of music itself – is
perhaps a more useful justification – although again, this could be said of any
number of activities (Kivy – 1991 – suggests computer games, gastronomy and
baseball – which doesn’t sound like too bad a curriculum to me!) Koopman
finally turns to the idea of a ‘self-justifiying’ music curriculum – whereby
music education itself can enable students to comprehend the value of music –
but obviously argument cannot really be fully demonstrated given that it is
rather personal to the individual. In my PGCE assignment, I ended up concluding
that it was impossible to justify Music in the curriculum largely because it
was impossible to discuss any sort of education in a discursive way. Perhaps
that was a slightly defeatist conclusion – but I was proud to note that I had
managed to talk about Plato in my assignment, in relation to music’s status as
one of the classical Seven Liberal Arts. However, I’m not sure that was
necessarily my most compelling or relevant piece of evidence for a modern
justification of Music in schools!
So, having reminded myself of all these ways of thinking
about the purpose of music education, I’ve been back over a few of the more
recent government documents about Music to see what sort of justifications they
tend to be using these days. The National Plan for music sort of does a bit of
‘extrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic’. The very first paragraph praises teachers who ‘instil
in our young people a passion for music, the skills to perform and compose, and
an understanding of the dedication and hard work necessary to achieve
meaningful success in this subject’ – suggesting in some way that there is an inherent
value to Music education. However, much of the rest of the document focuses far
more clearly on the extrinsic benefits of music – page 9, for example, includes
the statement that ‘the value of music as an academic subject lies in its
contribution to enjoyment and enrichment, for its social benefits, for those
who engage in music seriously as well as for fun.’
The new, 2013, National Curriculum meanwhile states that ‘a
highly quality music education should engage and inspire pupils to develop a
love of music and their talent as musicians, and so increase their
self-confidence, creativity and sense of achievement’ – before going on to talk
about the importance of critical engagement with music. There’s no doubt that
these are ‘hard’ – or ‘intrinsic’ – justifications for music education – gone
are the references from the previous National Curriculum to ‘personal expression,
reflection and emotional development’. Which, to be honest, makes me very
happy. And this brings me, at last, to the reason that I’m actually thinking
about all of this at the moment.
Last term, I attended a brilliant seminar on assessment in
Key Stage 3 music, led by Martin Fautley and Ali Daubney. The content of the
seminar was incredibly useful – but it was the ‘starter’ activity which got me
riled. We were asked to discuss, in small groups, what the outcomes might be of
an ideal music education at Key Stage 3. My group immediately started to talk
about all sorts of social and emotional benefits of learning music. They wanted
their students to develop a sense of identity, to improve their social skills,
to enjoy themselves. I said that I wanted my students to become excellent
performers and composers. Which is when it happened – I was accused of being ‘a
bit elitist’. I’ll admit that I didn’t expect that at all – and looked around
at the rest of the group expecting someone to jump to my defence, but instead
found that everyone else was in agreement. Expecting musical excellence from
all of my students made me one of the bad guys.
Now I’ll admit that this doesn’t really worry me. I’m pretty
sure I’m right to want all of my students to develop musical skills – and of my
course my definition of ‘excellence’ is not confined to classical musicians or
any sort of notion of exam grades or virtuosity – I believe it’s possible for a
student to become excellent at performing the bass line to ‘Smoke on the Water’,
or at composing a glockenspiel leitmotif to accompany a scene from Harry
Potter. And I would have said as much to my fellow teachers at the seminar had
I been given the opportunity. But, this somewhat frightening accusation did get
me thinking about the perceptions that students and perhaps teachers have of
Music education and what it’s for – particularly as they transition from Key
Stage 3 to 4.
Post-14 Music, as I have previously mentioned, is not the
most popular subject. In fact, the Cultural Learning Alliance report of 2013
noted that the take-up of Music GCSE had dropped by 10% in the previous 10
years (a change they attributed to the introduction of the EBacc), while the
recent (2015) Warwick Commission report noted an 11% drop in the number of arts
teachers in schools, as well as an 18% drop in the participation of 5-10 year
olds in music between 2008 and 2014. Worryingly, the effects of these low
take-ups are now becoming quite severe - the 2014 ASCL report ‘Education
Stripped to the Bare Bones’ noted that A Level Music is suffering – and often
completely disappearing – in schools due to huge cuts in funding making it
unsustainable. A Level funding in 2014 was just 58% of what it had been in
1997, meaning that classes generally need a teacher-student ratio of 1:19 just
to break even. Not a likely scenario.
But why is take-up so low? A Teach Through Music event that
I – and some of you – attended back in the Autumn about Key Stage 3 to 4
transition brought to light the current dichotomy between what is required at
Key Stage 4 and 5 – particularly in terms of both instrumental or vocal
performance and understanding of Western classical theory – and what is often
seen as the purpose of Key Stage 3 music in terms of being wide-ranging and
inclusive. With GCSE syllabuses focused largely on Western Classical music and
rigidly defined types of performing and composing as they are – and this
particular point doesn’t seem likely to change in 2016 – it is widely accepted
that students who take individual instrumental lessons and who have a grounding
in music theory that goes above and beyond what is generally taught at Key
stage 3 will do better at GCSE Music. There are two possible reasons that this
is the case – either GCSE Music is too rigid and not focused enough on
creativity, or Key Stage 3 music is too broad and creative, and not focused
enough on classical theory. In fact, I’ve heard both of these views expounded
very recently. The first by Keith Evans, programme manager for Teach Through
Music, and, interestingly, the second by A Level and first-year Conservatoire
Music students at yet another Teach Through Music event, who complained that
they had not been taught enough specific theory in school music lessons, which
they found to be a disadvantage later on.
Having become more and more intrigued by these issues, and
more concerned about whether my philosophy of music education really could be
called ‘elitist’, I decided it was time to do a bit of reading, and see if I
couldn’t find anyone else grappling with the same thoughts. I found an article
by Chris Philpott (again) on ‘Equality of opportunity and instrumental tuition’
(2001)[4].
Philpott discusses the wide range of issues surrounding access to instrumental
tuition, the impact of students’ economic situations, and the resulting effect
on ‘achievement’ in Music, where the old National Curriculum required students
to have ‘control of instrument specific techniques’, and GCSE and A Level
performances were marked according to difficulty levels which correspond to
exam grades. Interestingly, the new National Curriculum now requires students
to have ‘the opportunity to study a musical instrument’ – but obviously the
situation has not changed regarding GCSE and A Level music, despite Edexcel
saying back in 2000 that ‘the highest grades’ would be ‘accessible by those
candidates who may not receive additional instrumental tuition’. All of this,
Philpott argues, has created a perpetuation of music as ‘an elitist and to some
extent exclusive subject’ with the economic issue surrounding individual
lessons as a key factor.
So, Philpott goes on to suggest three possible solutions.
Perhaps music should be considered as a ‘special case’, whereby it is
acknowledged that students should be able to achieve the highest grades
at GCSE without extra instrumental tuition – so those who do have extra tuition
would be going above and beyond the requirements of the course. Of course, this
would mean that a far higher proportion of students taking GCSE music would
achieve the highest grades. Alternatively, Philpott suggested that
opportunities to study instruments should be extended – and indeed this has
happened to a large extent through the introduction of Wider Opps teaching and
the focus on opportunity in the new National Curriculum. A final suggestion of
Philpott’s is that music’s main problem at the moment is the sense of ‘linear’
achievement that exists in always considering performing skills in relation to
‘difficulty’ – somewhat like my arguments about ‘excellence’ earlier, high-quality
musical engagement does not necessarily mean engagement with a ‘difficult’
piece of music. If we were to ‘rethink’ musical achievement in terms of quality
rather than complexity, this may go a long way to solving our problems. So, at
least Philpott agrees with me.
Perhaps not so for Woodford. In ‘Democracy and Music
Education’[5],
Woodford argues for a ‘democratic’ and ‘liberal’ music education which embraces
all types of musical knowing – and he criticises teachers who ‘passively’
accept trends in music education. So far, so good. However, Woodford goes on to
suggest that, by being concerned with ‘excellence’ in performance, teaching can
become undemocratic and insular. Perhaps my use of the word ‘excellence’ was
more problematic than I realised.
So, by this point in my reading I felt that the elitism that
I had been accused of was, at least, not the elitism of Philpott and Woodford,
even if using the word ‘excellence’ was perhaps not the best choice. But what
of the point of view of those other teachers, who seemed to value the ‘soft’,
social justifications of music education above ideas of musical intelligence or
satisfaction? Is this ok? Does it cause problems?
At the end of a long day’s reading in the British Library, I
came across the work of Lamont and Mason – and in particular, their article
‘Unpopular Music: beliefs and behaviours towards music in education’ (2010)[6].
Lamont and Mason, like Philpott and Woodford, consider the various attitudes of
teachers and students towards GCSE Music, but they do so through the lens of
Legitimation Code Theory. For those of you unfamiliar with this theory, it is a
framework for the study of knowledge which builds on the theories of Basil
Bernstein and Pierre Bourdieu, as well as a variety of others, and looks at the
practices and beliefs of ‘agents’ – in this case students and teachers - as
embodying messages as to what should be the dominant basis of achievement in a
certain area – in this case a school subject. Specialisation codes are used as
a tool for considering the underlying principles of an area that form the basis
for a claim to legitimacy – or achievement – in that area. Briefly the four
codes are ‘knowledge’ – whereby the possession of specialised knowledge is key
to achievement, ‘knower’, whereby the attributes of a person – such as having
‘talent’ or ‘taste’ – are key, ‘elite’,
where one must both have knowledge and be the right kind of knower in order to
succeed, and ‘relativist’, where one needs neither specific knowledge nor to be
a particular type of person.
Lamont and Mason apply Legitimation Code Theory to the
various stages of music education, and find – as perhaps one might expect from
everything that I’ve said so far – that the ‘official’ requirements of music
education embody different specialisation codes at the different stages of the
curriculum. In primary school, the focus is on musical expression rather than
skills or knowledge – a ‘knower’ code. In Key Stage 3, skills and knowledge
often become more important – a ‘knowledge’ code. However, at Key stage 4,
students are required to both have skills and knowledge and to be creative and
expressive – an ‘elite’ code. Perhaps, then, Lamont and Mason have got to the
crux of this whole issue of GCSE uptake and music as an elite subject – is
music GCSE elite because you have to be the right kind of knower? Perhaps it
is, after all, instrumental learning and Western classical expertise are highly
valued, and these are not often skills taught in a whole-class situation at Key
Stage 3. Lamont and Mason asked students, who agreed, believing that ‘only
people with “natural ability” can learn the special skills needed’ for GCSE and
further study. So, we’re back to where we were before in terms of the GCSE
syllabus causing the problem.
Except that now we have a new understanding of precisely
what the problem is – this aspect of needing to be the ‘right kind of person’
to study GCSE music. If moving away from a classical and linear GCSE model is
not likely to happen any time soon, perhaps the solution instead is in teaching
students at Key Stage 3 in such a way that they come to see themselves as the
‘right kind of knower’. Students must learn that being ‘excellent’ at music (if
I’m allowed to use that word) is not out of reach. Every student has the
potential to be a ‘musician’. But wait. This can only be true if we as teachers
truly believe it, and aspire for each of our students not just to gain social
skills or to enjoy their music lessons but to develop high quality musical
responses and understanding. If we don’t aspire for our students to be
‘excellent’, how will they know that it is even possible? If we teach in a way
that suggests that excellence is out of reach for some of our students, are we
not ourselves perpetuating the elitist code of musical achievement?
I could continue on my soap box, and believe me, I think I’m
on to something. But, instead, I will end with a quote from Reimer’s
‘Philosophy of Music Education’ (2003)[7].
‘Music education’ says Reimer ‘should help individuals achieve whatever
potentials they have to be musically intelligent – able to more fully
experience musical satisfactions – in whatever ways they choose’. I couldn’t
agree more.
[1] PHILPOTT,
C., 2008. The justification for music in the curriculum: music can be bad
for you [online]. Available from:
http://www.music-ite.org.uk/guestblog/chris-philpott. [Accessed 29 September
2008].
[2] KOOPMAN, C.,
1996. Why Teach Music at School?. Oxford Review of Education, 22 (4),
483-493.
[3]
HALLAM, S., 2015. The Power Of Music – a
research synthesis of the impact of actively
making music on the intellectual, social and personal development of
children and young people. London: Music
Education Council.
[4]
PHILPOTT, C., 2001. Equality of opportunity and instrumental tuition. In: C. PHILPOTT AND C. PLUMMERIDGE, eds.
Issues in Music Teaching. London:
Routledge.
[5]
WOODFORD, P., 2004. Democracy and Music
Education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
[6]
LAMONT, A. AND MASON, K., 2010. Unpopular Music: Beliefs and Behaviours towards
Music in Education. In: WRIGHT, R.,
ed. Sociology and Music Education.
Basingstoke: Ashgate.
[7]
REIMER, B., 2003. A Philosophy of Music
Education: Advancing the vision. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
