by Author Carol Reid

Published on

You are here:

National Plan: problem or panacea for inclusive music education?

Back in 2011, the National Plan for Music Education was published, with great aplomb.  It stated that ““children from all backgrounds and every part of England” should have “…equality of opportunity … regardless of race; gender; where they live; their levels of musical talent; parental income; whether they have special educational needs or disabilities; and whether they are looked after”.  

In launching the plan, then Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove, said: “The National Plan for music will deliver a music education system that encourages everyone, whatever their background, to enjoy music - and help those with real talent to flourish as brilliant musicians.”  I’m not sure about you, but the phrasing of Mr Gove’s statement implies to me that there’s a dichotomy at play – at one end the masses who enjoy music (but presumably aren’t very good at it), and at the other end the few with ‘real’ talent who can flourish as ‘brilliant’ musicians.  

Unfortunately this sentiment is echoed in the plan itself, which purports the following framework for musical progression:

 

This framework is fine as one model of progression, but it is very limited.  What about those with a desire to take up a career teaching music?  What about those who want to progress to a career in music production?  Or those who want to progress as grime artists?  Unfortunately their needs are not covered by the National Plan framework because the model of progression is not fit-for-purpose in the 21st century. 

Because funding for Music Education Hubs follows the plan’s framework, opportunities for   children and young people to progress outside of the traditional routes are limited.  The chart below shows the types of area-based music-making ensembles and choirs organised or delivered by hub lead organisations:

 

It’s interesting to see that rock, pop and electronic opportunities are below average in relation to others that are available. Ed Vaizey asserted that the National Plan would “help provide our fantastic creative industries with the next generation of talent”.  Given the importance of the Britain’s global share of the popular music market (one in six albums sold worldwide are by British artists and seven of 2016’s top ten albums were by British musicians) isn’t it about time that there was more focus on the market (and future market) in the planning of music education activity?

Even if we’re not thinking about markets, we could assert that there are not enough opportunities provided by the formal music education system for children to play the types of music that they listen to and are passionate about.  It’s hard to get definitive listening statistics, but if we consider that young people aged 13-19 make up just 10% of the overall music market share, but have a much bigger market share in urban, pop, rock and dance (ranging from 13% to 18% across these different genres) – this does give a good indication of their listening tastes.  It is still a minority of Music Education Hubs that offer music production opportunities – and, as shown above, rock, pop and electronic bands are much less prevalent than more traditional ensembles.  Too often hubs are not putting children and young people at the centre of their planning processes, which impacts upon the relevance of their offer.  And as Sound Connections' Programme Manager Jenn Raven argues: youth voice is a necessity, not a luxury.

Impact not activities

The National Plan’s focus on “equality of opportunity” is to be welcomed, but this begets two problems: firstly, it means that the funding is supporting a universal offer rather than being targeted at those most in need (and although whole-class ensemble participation statistics are broadly representative in relation to economic standing and ethnicity, there are still swathes of children and young people missing out).  Secondly, the current focus on access needs to transition to a much closer scrutiny on impact.  For example, there is little to no evidence available about the outcomes occurring through whole-class ensemble teaching. If we don’t know the answer to this question, then it’s difficult to say for certain whether the hub model is a sound investment! This lack of information also means it’s difficult for workforce development activity be planned to ensure that the greatest impact is accruing from the provision.  As Youth Music’s CEO Matt Griffiths argues, to be more inclusive the National Plan should have a greater focus on depth rather than breadth, outcomes rather than outputs, and targeted rather than universal subsidy.

Looking to the future

We must recognise that Music Education Hubs  had a difficult task on their hands when they were conceived – the demands of moving to a hub model meant massive organisational change, at the same time as operating on a reduced budget.  As the hub model begins to bed down, new thinking is starting to emerge and many of the partnerships are now beginning to bear fruit.  The evaluation of Youth Music’s Musical Inclusion programme concluded that there has been “significant movement forward on hub working”.  Evaluations such as this, and the annual hub survey, mean that we know much more about the situation now than we ever have before, and as a result are able to think creatively about solutions. 

At a policy level, the culture white paper has some encouraging signs – with intentions to join up pathways into the cultural sectors “especially for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds”; recognition that “publically-funded culture should reflect the diversity of our country”; mention of the need to balance cultural investment between London and the regions; and an #OurCulture hashtag.  But does DCMS policy mirror that of the DfE (as the ultimate patron of Music Education Hubs)?  And will the remit for Music Education Hubs change when the next raft of funding opens?  There are opportunities as well as uncertainties. 

While there are shortcomings in the implementation of the National Plan, there is a lot of good practice taking place.  I recently presented a version of this blog at the 2016 International Society for Music Educators conference, alongside partners who showcased some examples of good practice and solutions-focused approaches to addressing need.

Youth Music’s contribution

In Youth Music’s Business Plan 2016-20 we have committed to increasing our impact for children and young people in challenging circumstances and to increasing the quality and reach of musically inclusive practice.  We current invest around £9 million each year of National Lottery funding (via Arts Council England, with whom we work closely) into inclusive music-making projects and will continue to target our investment where the need is greatest..  On top of this we have set ourselves ambitious targets to grant out additional funding for many more projects over the next four years, money for which we will raise through corporate partnerships, trusts and foundations, and fundraising initiatives including Give a Gig.

We know that in order to achieve our ambition of a musically inclusive England, we will need to work closely with our existing and new partners to identify what Youth Music should bring to the table (above and beyond the funding we grant out).  We will continue to operate the Youth Music Network to provide a forum for practitioners to exchange ideas and share learning; and we’re currently finalising our plans for resources, training and networking for the next few years.

What we’re clear about is that it’s down to all of us in  the music education sector  to lead the way in bringing about a more democratic music education system in England.  To challenge, to share learning, to maximise resources, and ultimately to improve the situation for children and young people.  Youth Music is ready and listening to be an active partner in this challenge, and we look forward to working with you to make change happen.