Who’s involved in Transforming Transitions?
It was interesting to read around the Transforming Transitions ideas that were advertised on the Music Manifesto site. It appears that some educational consultants are already claiming it as part of their portfolio of work, whilst another famous, UK association for music educators seems not to have heard about it. That’s disappointing for all sorts of reasons.
John:
So that people don’t get hung up on vague referencing in your post. I’m the consultant who’s ‘claiming’ it as my portfolio of work, because, well I did it. Should I not put the work that we’ve done on my web site?
To be clear, I was asked to advise PHF Trustees on what might be a useful area of work to support in future. So I prepared a briefing paper (I’m not sure if this is the one to which you refer, as I can’t find it on the Music Manifesto website). The issue of Transition was also identified by the Music Manifesto advocacy Group as one of their priorities, so the report became co-authored between the PHF and Music Manifesto.
I was employed simply to do that piece of work – which I completed some time ago – so I’m sorry if you think I’m ‘claiming credit’ for the report – should I take my name off it?
In carrying out the scoping exercise I spoke to representatives from a number of UK Music Associations (including MEC, NAME and FMS). This was about 2 years ago, so people may have moved off committees since then, or internal comms may not be great within the un-named, yet apparently famous Association, that you must have contacted.
Who’s involved? Well, not you apparently, and maybe that’s the problem. But don’t feel left out, as there’s a simple reason why it’s not involved too many people – it hasn’t begun yet! The PHF Trustees are recruiting, and then the actual work may commence. Until then, and until they decide what their priorities are going to be, maybe you should suspend judgment.
Keep smiling,
David Price
David Price
23 Nov 09 at 7:01 pm
Hi Dave,
Many thanks for your quick response. It was great to hear from you as always. I am a long time admirer of your work with Musical Futures etc and have enjoyed our occasion conversations at meetings, etc.
Can I say first of all, I’m delighted to hear that you’re involved in the Transforming Transitions project and that the preparatory work was part of your brief. Of course you should credit this on your website! There are very few people in the music education world who can generate £0.5m of funding for a project, and this on top of the several millions that Paul Hamlyn put into the Musical Futures project already. I know that you are a talented and skilful educator who has the best interests of the music education community, not least the young people we serve, at heart. If you wrote the report, your name should be on it! But it wasn’t on the copy labelled ‘briefing paper’ as part of the Music Manifesto advert for your convenor post.
I was also delighted to hear that you had consulted with the major groups of music educators across the country as part of the preparatory work you did. Given your reputation, I would have been surprised if you hadn’t done this. Still, it appears that the final paper itself was not shared. I’m sure objections, of the kind I have begun to make, would have been raised if you had done so.
In terms of involvement, I know that you’ll be disappointed to hear that I’m not wanting to be part of this work directly (but I would be happy to advise if needed). I have a range of projects here that I’m involved in and committed to. One of these, as you know, has been working with NAME supporting the introduction of a new National Curriculum for Music at Key Stage 3. I firmly believe that this is where the best chances lie for young people receiving a coherent, systematic and sustained music education. Working with all teachers to improve this is at the heart of what we both do. I know you would not want their work to be undervalued or dismissed. This is why I found certain phrases in the briefing paper so troublesome. Perhaps you had to overstate the case a little to get the funding, making a problem seem larger than it actually is? I don’t know. Either way, helping teachers create and establish a broad pedagogical base for their work, which includes a Musical Futures style pedagogy when appropriate, is our mission. Highlighting one approach to the detriment of others is not the way forward. This seemed to come over strongly in the paper.
I still maintain that the tone of the briefing paper is contrary to that mission, particularly in the part I highlighed in my other post. Perhaps you’d be prepared to respond to that post and the issue it rasied?
I do wish you every success with the Transforming Transitions project. Like you, I agree that this is an area that needs attention. I’m sure that you will be engaging with all elements of the music education community in a constructive way. I look forward to watching the project develop over the next year or so. Good luck!
Best wishes,
Jonathan
Jonathan
24 Nov 09 at 9:47 am
John:
You still seem confused, so let’s try this again. I co-wrote a paper (with Leonora Davies, working on behalf of the MMPAG group) which went to the PHF Trustees and MMPAG. I don’t know if either of those organisations made it public, it’s their choice.
It looks as though you haven’t seen it, though. So, I don’t see how you can be confident that ‘objections, of the kind I have begun to make, would have been raised if you had done so (shared it)’ concerning a paper that you haven’t seen!
You are quoting from a briefing paper which I didn’t write, and comes from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, so you’d need to take up your objections with them. But it’s a flawed logic that immediately connects a position paper of nearly 2 years ago, to a background paper for a job advert – in either language, style or content. And it’s not ‘my’ convenor post – I’m a jobbing arts and education consultant – the hirers of that convenor are PHF, not me. The Transforming Transition initiative is now being overseen by a small working group which includes PHF trustees, observers from DCSF, and the Chief Executive of Youth Music.
You should really take up your concerns with them.
I’ll also reply to the other posts, because I think you’re confused there as well – there are some misrepresentations of Musical Futures – though, like you, I’m quite busy, so would rather not have to!
Best wishes,
Dave
David Price
24 Nov 09 at 11:06 am
Thanks for clarifying the process Dave. That’s really helpful. I’ll leave it to individuals/organisations with more weight than me to respond to issues as (or if) they see fit. But I appreciate the way that you have spent time responding to some of my observations. Thank you.
Jonathan
24 Nov 09 at 1:15 pm