Rural Isolation, Funding and Potential Digital Tools
Engaging children and young people with music projects in rural areas has particular challenges. Issues around transport and low-density populations make high cost per capita budgets unattractive to funders. Developing digital tools may help resolve some of these difficulties.
I recently attended the NYMAZ ‘rural isolation’ symposium and launch of their ‘Gone in the Air’ research document. The meeting gathered together practitioners and organisation representatives who had an interest in rural issues. It was a real pleasure to be in the company of so many who really understood rural challenges.
I thought I’d share some of the useful things I picked up, and some thoughts following a report of current action research (Connect Resound) about digital peripatetic music delivery and live performance streaming in rural settings.
The afternoon started with brief talks about funding rural projects from a funder’s point of view (Youth Music, ACE, J Paul Getty Jnr. Charitable Trust and Local Authorities). There are several issues that make rural projects unattractive to funders:
- Cost per capita. Smaller numbers of participants due to low density demographics and higher costs of delivery due to transport costs (getting Music Leaders or participants to venues). Projects don’t look like value for money when compared to urban settings.
- Deprivation ratings are usually key criteria for funding. Rural pockets of deprivation are often hidden amongst wealthier neighbours and don’t come up in regional mapping.
- Funders are often based in London and are London centric. It’s much easier to pop over and check out an applicant in Lewisham than Cornwall or Yorkshire. Rural challenges may be less understood.
Youth Music reassured us that they understood rural challenges, accepted higher costs/capita and supported transport costs. Shrinking budgets/staff and merging departments meant that Local Authorities were less able to support organisations, financially or in kind (e.g. youth service cutbacks means fewer youth workers are able to participate in projects).
Practical advice came from Elizabeth Rantzen (Paul Getty). She recommended using digital tools to tell stories in funding applications and reports for assessment (e.g. links to videos where service users tell their own stories and how we help them) and where possible, think about using digital tools to assist in the delivery of your service, increasing the numbers reached and reducing cost per capita.
‘Gone in the Air’ is very interesting. It is a comprehensive report on the context and issues specific to rural areas. It is a very useful document to extract ‘evidence of need’ when looking for project support. It has 6 very constructive recommendations.
Finally, there was a report of some action research (Connect Resound) using digital tools to deliver peripatetic musical instrument lessons to pupils in rural schools (either one-to-one or small groups of up to 3 students), and live broadcasts of regional festival performances designed for school audiences. This saves regular transport costs.
Basically, live linkups using Skype or VR3 connected a teacher (from the county’s Music Service) and pupils. The students were at school, could be unsupervised and brought the next student to the Skype room when their lesson finished. They used high quality/ affordable audio/visual equipment for lessons with strings, brass, woodwind and guitar. The project found that CYP engaged with this method of teaching.
However, there were difficulties with time delays when trying to play together if the connection was slow, or the school was online with several computers at the same time (not necessarily all live streaming). Rural digital services are still slow in many areas.
This stimulated some thoughts of my own:
How would this work for non-formal group music making out of school, when CYP are at home?
A peripatetic teacher in the trial said she could build good relationships with students without face-to-face contact. It is widely recognised that group music making has three broad areas of beneficial outcomes:
- Musical
- Personal
- Social
B Sharp focuses on group work because our ‘reason to be’ is founded on achieving the personal and social outcomes that result from bringing people together, using music as a tool to do this.
I can see that online peripatetic work would achieve individual musical outcomes and some personal ones, but I think one-to-one teaching would struggle to deliver the all the personal and social outcomes that occur with group work.
Could online group work achieve the 3 outcome categories?
Perhaps a password protected chat room (as suggested by a young person in the digital breakout session) could be adapted to live music making? Perhaps using ‘jamming’ applications? (I don’t know anything about this – a quick Internet search flags up Jam With Chrome for up to 4 people, or 10 others applications listed here). There could be original music being made, with musical, personal and social outcomes - a 'virtual hangout' with music that binds them together. If connectivity was fast enough, I could see that working for CYP in remote locations.
It wouldn't even have to be in a region - In theory, it could be CYP in random parts of the country/world jamming/improvising together, with Music Leadership also based anywhere (although it would also be good to have them physically together sometimes too for easier interaction/performances, and that would be easiest if they were all in the same region/county/district).
One would have to think about:
- Internet safeguarding issues, but a password chat room could be part of the solution.
- Equipment. What would be needed in each home, could equipment be bought/loaned if the home didn't have it or couldn't afford it?
- Induction on how to use the equipment.
- Broadband speeds to synchronise music.
Does anyone have experience of on-line jamming or leading group workshops digitally? Any thoughts on exploring this?
Digital initiatives are supported by ACE, Youth Music and widely by other funders.