An unfortunate start to Transforming Transitions
Reading through the Transforming Transitions document (available within the briefing paper from the Music Manifesto website (http://tinyurl.com/ycuo98o) was at times an exciting, and and other dispiriting, experience. This initiative will build on the work of Musical Futures and is also funded by at grant of over £0.5m from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. In the words of the briefing paper:
This new initiative is intended to achieve a step change in the co-ordination, continuity and progression of young people’s music learning as they transfer from primary to secondary school, tackling the widely acknowledged lack of consistent and effective mechanisms to support young people at this difficult point of transition.[my emphasis]
Who could disagree that this is a potentially worthy venture? It picks up on some of the language from the Government’s New Opportunities initiative (http://tinyurl.com/y9y4mep) and translates this into a context which many music educators are familiar with (i.e the potential gap between Key Stages 2 and 3). It is only when one looks a bit more closely at some of the language within the briefing paper itself that some of the age-old Musical Futures-type prejudices begin to emerge. I’ve only got time to consider one example, but there are several others that could have been mentioned:
Many of the issues are not particular to music but there is a strong case for focusing on music learning given the significant government support (‘Sing-Up’, ‘Wider Opportunities’, ‘The Instrument Fund’, etc.) for music in school that has gone to the primary sector in recent years and that has raised young people’s motivation and desire to be musically active – and the clear risk that these gains will be lost in the intervening years before they might benefit from participation with MusicalFutures approaches towards the end of KS3.[my emphasis]
I’m not sure who composed this final sentence, but it is a damming inditement of the cavalier attitudes of this kind of initiative and, unfortunately, not untypical of the language of this organisation. It is worth dwelling on for a moment or two. Who is responsible for the potential ‘loss’ of the educational gains referred to? The paper is quite clear. There is a ‘clear risk’ that all the good work done in the primary sector through these initiatives will be lost. Presumably this is not the fault of the children involved in these initiatives? After all, they are not responsible for their learning are they or for the ways in which it should be sustained? Surely it must be the adults involved in Key Stage 3 music education. They must shoulder the blame. The briefing paper is suggesting that its teachers who are responsible for these potential losses. More specifically, teachers working within those formal structures which are commonly known as ‘schools’. They haven’t moved with the times of Musical Futures, at least not in the numbers expected. They haven’t embraced the new age of music education enlightenment where pupils are teachers and teachers are pupils. They haven’t surrendered themselves to the zeitgeist, yet. They will undo the heroic work of Governmental interventions at Key Stage 2 before a new, enlightened workforce of liberated Musical Futures’ educators can salvage the situation.
(By the way, this makes me cross on a different front. Namely, I’ve observed the huge cuts in music education on primary initial teacher education courses at close hand. My colleagues working within this area deserve substantial credit for the work they are doing with students training to be primary school teachers in very difficult circumstances. A strong commitment from the Government to supporting an approach to the whole curriculum, and the subjects within it, at the primary level within ITE may have made several of these initiatives less necessary, and possibly redundant. And there is also the issue of [lack of] sustainability in a system which is prone to severe changes and political interference/meddling).
But at least, as the Transforming Transitions briefing paper suggests, there is the possibility of salvation. The white horse (Shadowfax?)of Musical Futures appear on the horizon of Year 9, shedding its blinding light on the darker corners of music education in the secondary school, dazzling all its blaze and redeeming those that can sing its tune (not sure if that’s the horse’s tune and I think I’ve extended the metaphor a bit too far now!). Anyway, at least in Year 9 pupils can benefit from a Musical Futures approach (that’s if their teacher is part of the enlightened few).
Of course, effective transition is vitally important between all stages of education and I welcome the initiative despite its many ideological and methodological flaws. The terminology itself (Transforming Transitions) is, of course, politically loaded and worthy of unpicking in its own right. But at a general level, it’s such a shame that some of this paper is couched in such emotive and problematic language. It identifies a potential problem in music education, criticises many of those who have sought to engage constructively with it, whilst seemingly ignorant of its own provocative, generalist and alienating language. But whilst advocating a partnership approach, it has also been highly selective in its preparatory work.
To that end, it was interesting to search the internet today to find out who has been involved up to this point (23rd November 2009). Certain key educational consultants for Musical Futures have obviously been involved and were claiming credit on their websites; key music education organisations such as NAME and MEC have nothing on their website sites about it and, on enquiry, had not been consulted or knew anything about it. I’ve been an advocate and critic of the Musical Futures approach for some time (you can read my review of the Survey of Musical Futures on the TTRB site here: http://tinyurl.com/yctjtzw). But their approach disappoints me on occasions. This is one such occasion. This clumsily written briefing paper does music teachers in secondary schools no credit when some is due. Things aren’t perfect. They never are. But talking about committed professionals work like this, whilst wanting to engage with them as key partners for change, is hardly the way to go about things.
I’d welcome the views of others on this topic.
Jonathon:
You asked me to respond to this, so I shall. But only in a personal capacity – I co-wrote (with Leonora Davies working on behalf of MMPAG) the initial scoping exercise which persuaded the PHF Trustees to support the transition process from Primary to secondary school music – and I’m personally very glad that they are doing so.
I did not write the briefing paper that you quote from, so I can’t really respond to the language used, as it wasn’t mine.
I did though ‘claim credit’ for having done the scoping exercise – sorry about that, I thought that’s what you did on CVs.
Whilst I didn’t write the briefing notes that you quote from, I’ve looked at it, and I can’t personally see ANYTHING which directly lays the blame at secondary music teacher’s feet. I’m fairly confident that I didn’t say any such thing in the scoping exercise – you say the paper ‘makes it clear’ yet ‘suggests’ (which is it?) it’s KS3 teacher’s fault – I don’t think it does either.
You say the initiative is ‘cavalier’: again, it’s not for me to defend that charge but the working party now leading the initiative consists of very senior representatives and observers from DCSF, MMPAG, Youth Music and PHF Trustees – not usually known for being ‘cavalier’, I think.
I’ll leave it to PHF to respond or not to the criticisms of their briefing paper. But you take a fairly cavalier attitude yourself to mixing the consultation process, Musical Futures, Transforming Transitions, PHF all in together. It doesn’t look at though you’ve read the consultation paper which Leonora and I prepared, so I don’t know how you can know how widely we consulted. As an academic, you should know better than to trust a quick Google search! Also, if leading associations don’t have anything on their website, perhaps it’s because they either don’t blog, tweet and critique as prodigously as you do, or they feel that it might be a bit hasty to comment about an initiative which is still in its planning stage.
But the consultation exercise was quite extensive and covered teachers, headteachers, local coordinators, music services, Local authority representatives, and people from MEC, NAME, FMS and other national bodies. It continues, I believe, and Leonora has been up and down the country talking to people and looking at work. Does that sound ‘highly selective’ to you?
My own view of the Transitions problem (and it was those I consulted with who invariably described it as a problem, not me) is that it is an issue for which no-one has direct responsibility, which is what makes it an issue primarily of coordination. So, how you have decided that secondary teachers are to ‘blame’ is beyond me. Nor is it evident from PHF’s briefing paper (at least to my eyes).
In case I’m not being clear, my work is done on the Transitions. But I continue to be Project Leader for Musical Futures, and I’m sorry I have to correct you on that, too but here goes:
1. I don’t know what you’re going on about with all the White Horse stuff (aren’t Lord of the Rings references a bit silly?)
2.There is no workforce of ‘Musical Futures’ educators. It’s an approach to music learning which the vast majority of teachers who’ve adopted it have incorporated it into their practice, blending with their existing pedagogies.
3. No-one forced them to do it, we just made the resources available, and provide a bit of training. The ‘we’ by the way is not some corporate, hyped-up national office – it’s a total of 5 person days per week, spread across 3 people. That the approaches have spread is not down to media promotion (one national article in 7 years) – it’s simply word-of-mouth, from one teacher to another.
4. The inference that ‘they (teachers) haven’t moved with the times of Musical Futures, at least not in the numbers expected.’ is perhaps the biggest confusion you’ve got. We never had a target figure for schools adopting (and adapting) Musical Futures approaches, but I would never have imagined that the latest independent estimate of nearly 1400 secondary schools could have been realised. So, it’s not an ‘enlightened few’ as you claim – it’s getting towards half of English secondary schools (and growing).
5. And it’s not Year 9 that Musical Futures comes to the rescue! Some schools do it in Yr 8 or 7, some are even doing it with partner primaries – it seems to gall people that practitioners have taken some ideas, and made them their own, developing new resources all the time, freely sharing them with others, and train and support other teachers when they ask for it. It’s proper ground-up stuff this, not top-down instruction.
Does it sound like a workforce who are feeling criticised?
David Price
24 Nov 09 at 12:08 pm
Thanks Dave. That’s a great analysis of the issues. I’m happy to let other readers read the papers/posts and make up their own minds. I really appreciate the time you have taken to put the alternative case forward on the blog.
Jonathan
24 Nov 09 at 1:25 pm
This all seems to be getting rather petty and personalised, when what’s at issue is the very nature of the music curriculum.
Back in the 50s the experience of music in school was primarily one of performing. We sang lots of songs, and played our prescribed parts in the percussion orchestra. Some of us learned to play the piano or the violin. And all that seemed natural – after all, in the public eye performing is what music is mainly about.
By contrast, music in the National Curriculum is a delicate balancing act. Performing, composing and listening have to be subtly blended together to produce understanding. In practice, this means restricting the importance of performing.
National Curriculum music is a beautiful, complex, fragile structure. In our current highly driven, over-crowded industrialised education system it is already at great risk and needs constant maintenance. Maybe it is even too complex and fragile to survive, and we are wasting our time trying to defend it.
The case against Sing Up, Wider Opportunities and Musical Futures (for all their virtues) is simple: that they put the emphasis too heavily back on performing, and thus upset that delicate fragile balance. The massive resources poured into these initiatives distract schools from the day-to-day maintenance needed to preserve the music curriculum as a whole, so it is even further undermined. For those of us who love it, the alarm bells ring louder than ever, and we feel sore.
So when we read of
“the significant government support (‘Sing-Up’, ‘Wider Opportunities’, ‘The Instrument Fund’, etc.) for music in school that has gone to the primary sector in recent years and that has raised young people’s motivation and desire to be musically active – and the clear risk that these gains will be lost in the intervening years before they might benefit from participation with Musical Futures approaches towards the end of KS3″
our hackles rise. The message couldn’t be clearer: whoever wrote that is only barely aware that curriculum music exists! Why is it only Sing Up and Wider Opportunities that have “raised young people’s motivation”? Is it really the aim of school music to “raise young people’s desire to be musically active”? What is supposed to be happening towards the beginning of KS3 if these gains are at risk? The National Curriculum entitles every child in the country to an hour of music a week from age 5 to 14. Why wasn’t there ever “significant government support” for that?
Of course Sing Up and Wider Opportunities did not deliberately set out to undermine the National Curriculum philosophy of music education; they would be upset to think that’s what they are doing. They are swept along on a wave of enthusiasm, and this is just an unintended side effect. Musical Futures on the other hand is consciously designed to replace the National Curriculum with a new philosophy. It’s not just providing additional tools to the conventional pedagogy – it’s advocating a revolution in thinking.
The clue is in David Price’s enthusiasm for a “bottom-up” curriculum; implying a rejection of ‘top-down’ thinking. A bottom-up curriculum is one in which young people pursue the passions which the mass media have implanted in them. It argues that if we let these passions run free, real learning will eventually result, however informal and unstructured the process may seem; whereas top-down teaching, however imaginative and carefully planned, will always be sterile.
That is a position worth defending. It’s not one I personally share. Old-fashioned liberal elitist as I am, I would argue that a bottom-up curriculum is a betrayal of our duty to our children. What is school for if not to be top-down? The purpose of the curriculum as I see it is to give young people an intellectual framework for understanding the whole of human culture and the many roles music can play in human life. This includes present-day popular culture, of course – but also gamelan and Beethoven and Birtwhistle, because we as adults know they all have something important to offer.
English teachers are passionate about bringing Shakespeare alive in the classroom. Art teachers delight in introducing their pupils to Van Gogh and Picasso. Is music somehow different? You could argue that it is, that music has a unique place in our media-saturated culture and cannot follow the same rules as the rest of the curriculum. To take that line means exempting music from the target-setting, level-driven, objectives-led culture every other teacher is subjected to. I doubt many school managers would be prepared to take that line, but maybe it would be an improvement.
If the National Curriculum philosophy is now out-of-date, we need to put it to sleep, and stop trying to protect it. But if (as I believe) it’s more relevant than ever, then we need to start defending it, and that means attacking those who threaten it. Sometimes confrontation is the healthy thing to do….
Robert Bunting
25 Nov 09 at 9:25 am
I am a secondary music teacher in a large comprehensive with outstanding GCSE, BTEC and A level results. I teach from year 7 to year 13 and yes, I am a total Musical Futures convert. I think it is really important to deal with, what I believe, are some of the major misconceptions about Musical Futures which I myself shared when I first came across it 5 years ago and still seem to be going strong.
Musical Futures is not just about year 9s and is not just about band projects. I use the principles of Musical Futures across every year group. Only yesterday I was observed as giving an “outstanding” lesson (sorry to blow my own trumpet) to a class of year 10s on Minimalism. In this lesson I involved Listening, Performing and Composing which Robert, quite rightly, states ‘subtly blended together produce understanding’ So what was Musical Futures about this lesson? We started by sitting in a circle clapping Steve Reich’s ‘Clapping Music’ learning the patterns, working in pairs and putting them together. We then put these onto African drums. We followed this by making up ostinatos on tuned percussion using the Dorian mode and finally discussed how next lesson we were going to put these on to instruments of their choice to compose our own version of Reich’s piece. Suggestions of bass guitars playing riffs, putting words to the patterns and rapping them were just 2 examples. Briefly at the end of the lesson I checked the understanding of some of the main features of minimalism; looping, repetitive patterns, phase shifting, cultural influences. This learning and understanding had all taken place through ‘doing’ in a mainly student led activity which allowed them to have ownership. These are, for me, some of the key principles of Musical Futures teaching. Like the English and Art teachers Robert mentions, I am passionate about introducing my students to all types of music. I am also keen to tap into the passion for music that teenagers have. My classroom does not indulge in a ‘bottom-up’ or ‘top-down’ style but a mutual sharing of ideas, understanding, learning and love of music.
Emily Segal
27 Nov 09 at 9:49 am
Thanks Emily. You are obviously doing some fantastic work and I enjoyed reading about your recent Year 10 class. What you describe sounds like really good music teaching. I think the barriers between what is ‘Musical Futures style music teaching’ and ‘good music teaching’ are false. Musical Futures ideas have been a part of effective music teachers’ pedagogies for decades and Robert has given us something of that historical perspective in his post. If Musical Futures has done the job of reminding us what these are and reinforcing/consolidating them in teachers’ work then that is great. The problem about that sentence I identified in my original post still remains. It seemed to promote a separation between these ‘types’ of music teaching which is unhelpful, and that Musical Futures could ‘save’ pupils from a poor education earlier in the Key Stage by its focus in Year 9 (which, as you rightly point out, is completely not the case as the Musical Futures approach as it is covers a wider age range). But, once again, thanks for sharing this lovely example from your own practice.
Jonathan
27 Nov 09 at 10:31 am
[...] 3.4 Strategic targeting towards broader improvement in initial teacher education for class teachers; Easy to have a pop at classroom teachers. We’ve seen that before fairly recently. [...]
New report on the benefits of instrumental learning
1 Feb 10 at 9:31 am