Interestingly, the figures published by the FMS for the three year allocations from 2012 – 2015 bear little relation to the published figures by the Arts Council England. For example, according to the FMS figures Manchester would receive £2,754,215 whereas the ACE settlement quotes a figure of £2,345,777 (some £408,438 less); Herefordshire would have received £598,582 according to FMS whereas the ACE figure is £519,769 (£78,813 less). If anyone from the FMS is reading this, perhaps they could answer why the figures quoted on their website are so inaccurate?

In relation to Question 2, ACE have released a spreadsheet detailing which successful hub applications cover which local authority area. I haven’t been able to look at this yet but a comparison here would allow one to see which areas have not had successful bids. I’m sure the FMS must know this and it would great if they can tell us?

In relation to Question 3, I’m sad to report that redundancies are already being announced across the country. Changes to the Gloucestershire music service will result in 36 teachers being made redundant; Music Teacher are reporting a similar situation in Bedfordshire. The FMS press release signalled some of these developments, but they are proving very reluctant to share any intelligence that they may have at the current time.

The Federation of Music Services were quick to jump on the bandwagon and celebrate the inclusion of so many traditional music services in the new music hubs. They’re even campaigning for new ‘hub associate’ members! For this reason, I have three questions that I’d like to pose to the Federation of Music Services following their press release earlier today:

1. Would you publish the funding allocations given to all music services for the last (2010/11) and current (2011/12) years so that we can accurately position the recently published figures for music hubs? Will they, as I suspect they will, show that funding is being cut by an average of 10% each year?

2. How many music services have not had their music hub applications approved today? Do you know what is going to happen to the future of these services?

3. How many of the 12,000 instrumental teachers that you identify in your press release have already lost their jobs, and how many are you anticipating will lose their jobs as a result of these reforms?

I’ll let you know when I get a response.

I was also delighted to see that the other hub within which I have a role (the one consisting of the nine local authorities across Manchester) was featured in the ACE press release this morning. I was disappointed that they forgot to mention that Manchester Metropolitan University was a lead partner in that bid (but I suppose the RNCM and Cheethams School of Music sounded sexier for them).

So, all in all an exciting day but much work to be done.

The central philosophy of Love Music is ‘for schools, by schools’. Situated within the governance structures of Sandbach School, the new Trust will be co-governed by governors co-opted from primary and secondary schools across Cheshire East. In particular, the existing Teaching Schools network and Performing Arts Colleges will have a major role to play. The charity will also integrate its work with other organisations such as Music for Life. It will also work closely with:

• HEI partners such as the Manchester Metropolitan University and the Royal Northern College of Music;
• Music partners such as the Manchester Camerata, Halle, Northern Chamber Orchestra and others;
• Instrumental and industrial partners such as Roland UK, Sterling Instrument and Buffet Crampon.

The Love Music Charitable Trust will replace the existing Cheshire East Music Service from September 2012. Existing staff will be redeployed and Chris Bastock, the current leader of the music service, will work collaboratively with John Barber to help lead the new Trust.

Congratulations to all involved in the establishment of the new Trust. Whatever my own personal views about the current political direction of music education in the United Kingdom, I know that there are team of committed people behind this new venture who will do a fantastic job in delivering a new approach to music education in the region where I live. I’ve got my fingers crossed for other new hubs that will emerge today as a result of ACE funding decisions.

You have to get to page 216 of the second volume of their report to find the scandolous truth about the massive expense of the Teach First route compared to other providers. To save your time and energy, here is a screenshot of the table:

So, according to the table itself, Teach First is the most expensive pathway (when compared to a PGCE pathway) by some £7k. But, check out the footnotes. In addition to £23,277 per trainee, Teach First receive an additional £8,000 per participant to fund the costs associated with their Leadership Development programme (of which £4,166 is not included in the figures). So, the total cost per trainee of the Teach First programme is £27,443 compared to £16,470. That’s a whopping £10,973 more than a conventional PGCE pathway. And, apparently, they still have to raise income from charitable sources to cover their costs! I’d love to see their business model in more detail. It beggars belief.

For the record, these figures are a like for like comparison for training a specialist physics teacher in inner London.

In their defence later in the report, Teach First claim that schools actually save money by having one of their trainees because they are actually ‘filling a teaching vacancy in their first year’ (i.e. or, in other words, the schools adoption of their trainee means they don’t have to recruit another fully qualified teacher). They acutally cost this out on Ev211 (p.217) and their table is copied below:

This is plainly ridiculous on so many levels. Firstly, and it needs saying, a first year Teach First trainee is clearly not as well qualified to teach a full teaching timetable as a newly qualified or experienced teacher; secondly, the perceived ‘savings’ for schools in this respect have not been mapped or considered in other pathways.

For a PGCE student, for instance, throughout their 120 days in school they might teach, on average over the year, a 50% timetable. So, should we consider reducing the overall cost of training a PGCE student by the 60 days worth of teaching they do (approximately 1/3 of a full time teacher’s teaching commitment of c.180 days)? Going by Teach First’s own figures (£27,000 salary/3 = £9000: see Ev211 note 2 in table above), this would reduce to the taxpayer  and schools he overall cost of training a PGCE student to around £7k, i.e. at least £20k less than the Teach First route/trainee.

In other words, a like for like comparison of the overall cost to the taxpayer means that you could train around 3 teachers through a PGCE programme for every one teacher that Teach First train. Except, of course, it is plainly a ridiculous line of argument that only Teach First seem to think is suitable to justify their exorbitant fees.

I am staggered that at this time of financial austerity, the Government believes it is right to promote the work of a private charity and fund it so generously. I have no doubt that Teach First produce good teachers. But so do our university programmes. Even if you disagree with me about the potential ‘savings’ a school could make by adopting a PGCE within their staff, there is no way that the additional £11k spent on training a teacher through the Teach First programme is money well spent when universities can produce teachers equally as good and just as effective for a lot less.

It is also worth noting that the costs involved in training teachers in subjects without bursary payments (e.g. Music) will be even more extreme. Take the £9k training bursary out of the original table and a music student on a Teach First programme will still cost £27,443; the music student on a PGCE programme will cost the taxpayer £7,470. Outrageous.

Here is Jonathan’s post …

Q. Does the recently appointed monitoring board for musical hubs have sufficient expertise around SEN/ disability to ensure accountability?

All of the recent ‘big three’ reports on music education – Henley, National Plan and Oftsed – have made clear and specific statements about the urgent need to address the historical shortfall in music provision for SEN/ Disabled (SEND) students. Darren Henley started the ball rolling when he recommended that a National Plan ‘should also include details of provision for children with Special Educational Needs and Looked After Children’.

The National Plan itself places emphasis on the entitlement of SEN/Disabled (SEND) pupils to ‘high quality music provision’ and requires all hubs to do an on going needs analysis in their area to ensure they reach all young people. Finally, Ofsted referenced it within their number one recommendation – to ‘challenge inequalities in musical opportunities and participation among pupils’.

It’s a surprise then, and disappointing, to see that the monitoring board overseeing the implementation of the National Plan doesn’t appear to include anyone with expertise in SEN/ disability and music provision. Granted, there are some very experienced people on the board who will have experience of SEN issues more widely; but we’ve been here before. Some of the big music initiatives of recent years – Sing Up! and Wider Opportunities among them – failed to address SEND provision sufficiently at the planning stages. Success did eventually come down the line, but opportunities for children and their teachers were lost because the ‘right’ sort of questions weren’t asked.

So, the new hubs and the make-up of those monitoring them is a crucial test case on whether we are really serious as a sector about raising the standard of provision for SEND students. Is SEND a priority, as stated by the government; or is it doomed to be the ‘nearly man’ of the National Plan? It’s not too late to consider additional support and advice for the monitoring board on what is, admittedly, an area of provision in which there are few experts but which has long been crying out for some proper attention.

I’m really pleased to working at MMU, a fantastic university with a great reputation. However, the best thing about working at MMU are the people I get to work with. In particular, Will Evans and Jane Petrie are fabulous colleagues whom I have the greatest respect for. It has been a privilidge to work with both of them for a number of years.

Research at the newly-named Faculty of Education is located within the Education and Social Research Institute (ESRI), housed in the above building. Here, research professors and others work on a range of research projects. I enjoy teaching on a range of research-orientated courses (such as the EdD and MRes) and have had some great students from the worlds of education, social work and health care.

So, I’m really excited that one of these courses – the MRes – has been rewritten and, from September 2012, you will be able to come to MMU and engage with a fantastic course taught by great staff. I’ve attached a .pdf outlining the course in more detail would highly recommend it to you. Here’s the opening paragraph:

This is a 1-year, full-time programme, comprising 4 taught units and a dissertation. It is a research training programme for students who wish to go on to study for a PhD and for research workers in education and the social sciences. The course can be taken as a free-standing qualification and as a research training programme it covers all key areas of research methods preparation, including: qualitative and quantitative research methodologies, data collection techniques, methods of analysis, developing theoretical, methodological and ‘real world’ skills for researchers. The course structure is designed to provide a collaborative, student-centred approach that makes the best use of digital technologies to increase flexibility, collaboration and insight into the latest research and practice. Exit awards will also be available.

Here is Alison’s post about the recent Ofsted Report and the ripples it has caused:

Regular readers of Jonathan’s blog will know that the Ofsted triennial review for music was published earlier this month, and whilst outstanding practice was showcased, there were a worrying array of messages about how much better music education could/should be. More disappointing for me was that many of these messages were similar to the 2009 review; yet the vast majority of music practitioners I know are hard working professionals who are passionate about sharing their love of music with young people. Let’s be clear that there is no distinction in the report about one particular sector of music education needing to improve – these messages are equally as valid to community musicians and instrumental teachers as they are to generalist and specialist music teachers in all kinds of school settings.

I have read so many blog and Twitter entries in the last couple of weeks about the sector’s failure for improvement, often pointing the finger towards subject associations for not getting the message out there in 2009. But is this really the problem? Subject associations only have marginal membership in relation to the number of music practitioners in the wider community, so would this really make a difference? Beyond those that actively subscribe to such organisations, how many busy music practitioners do you know that regularly have time for a lunch break, let alone time to read and assimilate a 70+page document. Moreover, how many headteachers do you know that make time for this?

So what about the rest of the schools and the thousands of practitioners who work in music education but often outside of the mainstream classroom and aren’t members of subject associations? It strikes me that in music education we do not have an efficient way of distributing news and guidance to all practitioners and senior leaders in all schools, yet this is crucial for improvement and creating communities of practice. This is not a new problem; the Music Manifesto, the details of the new Key Stage 3 curriculum and the National Strategies have failed to deliver the promised impact in many music departments over the years. And anyway, whose responsibility is it to get information to them? Clearly in the case of music, Ofsted do not distribute the subject reports to all schools directly (do they in STEM subjects?) and, as often and worryingly pointed out, some music education organisations could focus more on attempting to fix some of the fundamental issues in music education. My hope is that they will put aside the differences and start working together more strategically in order to support the sector as a whole, which I see indications of happening in this case with NAME considering how they can use the briefings and Sound Sense willing to distribute them to their members. I definitely think that there are no ‘quick fixes’ here anyway and that teachers need to be empowered and headteachers need to support change. Look at the Musical Futures Champion Schools – the bottom up and top down approach has been one of the keys to successful implementation and I know it is something Dave Price works really hard to advocate.

My personal opinion is that Mark Philips should be commended for bringing together some fundamental issues in music education, particularly around variable curriculum time, poor models of assessment, lack of CPD and ill-advised school-wide models and initiatives which really hinder musical learning and progression. Additionally, the report makes a case for routinely embedding mobile technology and the use of mobile phones, which were welcomed with a cheer in our department at the University of Sussex. I have only met Mark a couple of times but I get the impression he genuinely believes in the value of a worthwhile and inspiring music education. In a couple of schools I know where Mark and his team carried out a music subject inspection, his insightful feedback has really helped departments to move on and embed much more musical learning and participation. Of course, it helps a teacher greatly when HMI tells a headteacher that in order to make musical learning more musical, many of the things pointed out in the report need attention. No headteacher likes being told that the music department at their school is ‘satisfactory’ and that this is because of the many reasons listed above, which are more related to the way in which learning in the school is organised than being attributed directly to the teacher.

With the headlines on the BBC and in the newspapers last week being far from encouraging I many respects, I feel that it is important that the Ofsted report is used positively to help empower practitioners and improve teaching and learning in music education, and not as a stick to beat teachers with and devalue music in schools even further. Having previously worked on music education with the ISM, I approached them to ask them to support me in writing something succinct which could be distributed more widely and also included a very brief synopsis for Headteachers.

Jonathan has already uploaded the link to the resulting teacher and headteacher briefing documents but for ease they can be found at:

http://www.ism.org/news/article/ofsted_2012_recommendations

I chose to approach the ISM because, on this occasion, I am confident that they have both the capacity and genuine interest and understanding of music education to try and promote these messages effectively and quickly to a wide audience, which is certainly proving to be the case here. They understand policy and advocacy and work hard to establish themselves as a leading voice in the music education arena, under the skillful guidance of Deborah Annetts and Henry Vann. Additionally, I am very pleased to report that some other National organsations from within and beyond Music education have already recognised the value of these materials and passed them on; Cambridge Primary Network sent the attachments to 2000+ primary schools and additional affiliates, Youth Music and EFDSS are happy to use the materials on their websites and I am very glad to have their support. There are some signs that some organisations within the Music Eduction world are starting to collaborate on advocacy, which is a definite improvement from times gone I this will continue.

However, this is not enough, because as I have mentioned, subject associations have small memberships in relation to the number of practitioners involved in music education. So far I have personally sent these documents out directly to everyone I think may be interested, including all potential local hub partners, teacher training colleagues, ex students and music services who I have previously worked with. From the feedback I have, they have been well received in schools and services, yet I know that this is such a small minority of music practitioners. I hope that other organisations, particularly those with a database of music practitioners of any size, will also distribute them freely.

The documents have also sparked some interesting debate, particularly in relation to the new Ofsted framework. I have sent some points to Mark Philips for clarification and will inform Jonathan of the response because these points are of interest to the wider music education community. There are plans for wider distribution, but to really make an impact requires need the help of everyone else who I know who cares about music education as much as me and my colleagues do. Music education is currently in a very precarious position; whatever kind of music education you support or professional association you belong to I urge you to put aside your differences and get this important information out to policy makers, local authorities, music services, arts organisations, practitioners, school leaders and whoever else you think needs to hear these messages. After all, if we don’t pull together and do this, I think we can be very confident that nobody else will do it on our behalf.

I’m currently reading Erich Fromm’s Fear of Freedom. I had an email yesterday from a long-established teacher who was worried about losing the structure of sub-levels and half termly reporting. I couldn’t help thinking that the points Fromm made in 1942 about reliance on structure were equally valid in this case. Practitioners, particularly those who have been teaching for a while, will need plenty of support and understanding, particularly from headteachers, to step away from the systems they have had imposed, and to take creative risks themselves. This is equally true for all kinds of practitioners; but there is the potential here that music practitioners might actually take on board the messages in this report and find the confidence to deliver a more self-directed and meaningful music education for all.

These briefings are not about advocating any one style or method of music teaching as superior to any other. We all know that inspirational teaching comes in many different ways and from many different approaches and personalities. What I hope these reports do is to support all teachers to deliver a better music education, whatever approach they choose to take. Whilst I have tried to include as many key points as succinctly as possible, I know there are others which may have been marginalised. I think this really is an opportunity for us to be proactive in influencing change in the music classroom, at what is a critical time for music education. Is there a sea change in music organisations working together for the greater good of music education? If not know, then when?