The Music Council of Australia (MCA) is informed of anxiety among school music teachers about the consequences for music of the new National Curriculum. This missive is to tell you what we know and to invite you to post questions or comments.
Richard Letts, Executive Director, MCA
A quick list of things from the past that are relevant today
- In the early 90s there was a parallel situation. The Federal Government chose Key Learning Areas and omitted the arts. A cross-artform alliance, the National Affiliation of Arts Educators (NAAE), fought back and succeeded in having the arts included. Five separate artforms were written into the national curriculum, as recommended by NAAE.
- However, due to changes of government across the country in 1993, the notion of a ‘national curriculum’ was scrapped, and each (by now Conservative) State and Territory created its own arts curricula, some reflecting the five artform approach as intended by NAAE, and others setting up ‘creative arts’ curricula, combining the four or five artforms into a blancmange that became the staple subject in university preservice courses for primary school teachers. We all know the result of that.
- In 2005, the National Review of School Music Education (NRSME), commissioned by then Education Minister Brendan Nelson, made 99 recommendations about music education. The Coalition government took baby steps to implement them and then lost office. The Labor government has made promises but mostly not yet kept them. The review of music education was followed shortly afterwards with another for visual arts. Both recommended universal education in their respective artforms. The other three artforms have not had reviews.
- The Australian Primary Principals Association (APPA) issued a manifesto with the objective of narrowing the curriculum to focus on four core subjects (literacy, mathematics, science and social education), excluding the arts. The National Review was ignored. Efforts by the MCA and others to have the arts included were not successful, although their importance at some subsidiary level was acknowledged.
- Last year, the Labor government announced the creation of a National Curriculum. The arts were omitted from the schedule as then announced. The NAAE (now, National Advocates for Arts Education) was reconstituted to include MCA and NAVA and, supporting action by Arts Minister Garrett, persuaded the Education Ministers to include the arts in Tier 2 of the work. Inclusion is critical because on it may depend the availability of funds and resources.
- The Education Ministers in December 2008 issued the Melbourne Declaration, describing in broad terms the education that every child should receive. Included is an education in “the performing and visual arts”. An important plus.
- As a consequence of these two actions, governments are now committed to a process involving all five artforms. Creation of a national curriculum is implicitly to be followed by its implementation, which means all five artforms are to be taught. There is no hint that any is to be preferred over the others.
The process of creating the national curriculum
- The process is the responsibility of a new body, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). The person in charge of the process is Rob Randall, who previously worked in curriculum development for the NSW Department. The researcher in charge for the arts is Josephine Wise. The office is in Melbourne but moves to Sydney in the new year. Website is www.acara.edu.au .
- We have met, through the NAAE, with Rob Randall. MCA is also represented on ACARA’s official reference group for the arts. Our experience is that Randall is exceptionally open to the issues and that ACARA promises a process that will seek the opinions of all who wish to volunteer them. You do not need to fear exclusion from this consultative process. Your input will be invited.
- ACARA will prepare separate curricula for each of the artforms. There will be a music curriculum with integrity. The so-called subject called “creative arts” will not exist in the National Curriculum, so far as is evident at this time. We know of no-one who is arguing for its retention (including ACARA). It seems that the design process will take account of existing curricula.
- ACARA envisages completing the curriculum in mid-2012. Presumably, implementation will begin as practicable thereafter, from 2013.
What do we want? Advocacy considerations
- The MCA has just reaffirmed its objective: that every child should have access to a continuous, sequential, developmental music education throughout the school years. Indeed, it has fought for years to achieve this objective. Rumours to the contrary are mistaken.
- You probably know of our campaign, Music. Play for Life. You probably know of the Music. Count Us In project, the Flame Awards, Guitars for Schools, IGNITE and others. We had much to do with the instigation of the National Review of School Music Education. We commissioned the Stevens Report and have just completed research into preservice music training for primary school teachers.
- It’s not so easy to figure out advocacy strategies. Deciding what we want is one thing. But it’s only the first step. We have to consider the situation and interests of the people we are trying to persuade and the context. And whether what we want is feasible.
- The context has changed. In the National Curriculum process, governments are dealing with all of the five artforms, not just music as was the case when we advocated for music and the National Review resulted. The National Curriculum will deal equitably with all five artforms.
- The arts are in the National Curriculum because of a united front by the artform organisations. (Minister Garrett’s office tells us it’s because of!) We need to honour each other.
- We need also to remember that this is for the kids. Speaking personally, I have run a multi-arts school. I know that some kids are best served by music and others aren’t. Our objective is to mandate the provision, the opportunity.
- ACARA has the responsibility to create a curriculum, not to implement it. Nevertheless, it has a concern that its curriculum is capable of being implemented.
Teacher skills
- High schools use music specialists so teaching skills there are not such a problem. Primary schools are the big problem in the six states (other than Qld and Tas) where music teaching is the responsibility of primary classroom generalist teachers.
- To reinforce our understanding of this situation: Ian Harvey extracted figures from the MCA’s Stevens Report: about six years ago, only 23% of public schools had the resources to offer a competently delivered music education.
- The main reason for inadequacy: the average amount of compulsory music training received by undergraduates in preservice degrees for primary classroom generalist teachers is 17 hours, as just revealed by MCA research by Rachel Hocking. A curriculum written to match their musical skills thus will be very short and very useless. The curriculum for Qld and Tas, where there is very widespread use of music specialists, would be quite different. [Both the research reports mentioned here can be found under MCA RESEARCH on www.mca.org.au ]
- So for whom is ACARA writing the music curriculum? The specialist teachers of Qld and Tas, or the almost totally untrained generalist teachers in the other states? (Of course, some generalist teachers are good music teachers, but that is not a result of the mandatory music instruction in their undergrad degree programs and we cannot assume that those extra skills are widespread.)
- So we would assert that it is pointless for ACARA to write a curriculum to match the skills of the ordinary primary generalist classroom teacher. On the other hand, can it assume that governments will pay for upgrading the musical skills of the teaching force?
- There is a very strong body of opinion in the music education community that the only successful solution will be the introduction of specialist music teachers into every primary school. Then the curriculum would be written for their skills.
- There is another long-standing view that music is best taught by the classroom teacher because it can then be integrated into the daily life of the classroom and into the teaching of other subjects. There certainly is merit in the argument but only if the classroom teacher is capable of teaching music. Strategically it obviously is dangerous because the delegation of music teaching to classroom teachers has not been supported with training and resources. It has been a way of evading the problem rather than solving it.
- Is it anyway conceivable that mandatory preservice training could be stepped up to a level adequate to the need: say, weekly music classes for all four years of an undergraduate degree? (And remember that increasingly, teacher qualifications are gained through one to two years postgrad courses, so weekly music classes for that short period would also be inadequate.)
- ACARA is considering skirting the problem by setting a curriculum around a concept of what we want the kids to know/do at the end of each grade level. That’s not a bad strategy. But whatever it is we want them do know/do, they are not going to get there under the leadership of a classroom teacher with 17 hours of music education.
- So the issue is one of resources. It was always one of resources. Having a fine curriculum is a good thing but governments have to be willing to provide the funds to pay for it to be taught and the key expense is the cost of skilled teachers.
Five artforms
- We have to consider that since governments have agreed to the construction of curricula for all five art forms, they will be called upon to apply similar strategies to all.
- As noted, MCA and probably many readers have worked for universal provision of continuous, sequential, developmental music education. That is our aspiration and goal.
- ACARA has accepted, I believe, that curricula in each of the arts should be continuous, sequential and developmental. That is also the aspiration and goal of the representatives of the other artforms in the NAAE.
- You could say that a logical consequence is that the collective goal is to have continuous etc education in all artforms in every school throughout the compulsory school years. Let us assess this.
- The UK government has announced this year that it intends that every school student will have five hours of instruction in the arts per week1. Translated here, that would mean that say, each artform would have an hour a week of school time. The implication is that it is feasible, though it has not been implemented yet in the UK so that is, so far, only a concept.
- 80% of public schools do not offer a continuous etc music education. It is reasonable to infer that a similar proportion do not offer such an education in the other artforms.
- If this instruction were to be delivered by classroom generalists, they would have to become skilled in five artforms. I’m not skilled in five artforms, are you? Honestly, I doubt I could be. And to try to make me skilled would take about half the instructional time in my undergraduate degree, with very uncertain outcomes. We would need specialist teachers in all five artforms in every school. That is achievable, over time, if governments would pay. Would they?
- The school week has 25 hours. ACARA says the principals would be unwilling to have every hour of the week tagged to some subject so we should consider that there are 20 hours available. We are advised to assume that half will go to literacy and numeracy, with the other 10 hours divided between science, history, geography etc and the arts.
- How much time does each artform need? How much time can the arts claim without being seen as outrageous?
Alternatives
- We could go for broke. All the arts for every child, full-blown curricula and delivery.
- Music could say, well that isn’t going to happen. The main thing is to ensure that there is continuous music education in every school. The other arts are not so important. Would that argument work? Whose nose would that get up?
- At the ACARA reference group meeting, one breakout group proposed “all the arts some of the time, some of the arts all the time.” The NAAE suggests continuous etc education in at least two artforms, chosen by the school, rich but not continuous experiences in all others. The intention is to find a workable solution considering likely constraints on class time and resources
- The NAAE construct has become known in the music education community and is criticised as too much of a compromise because it abandons the proposition that music would be mandatory for all schools.
- It would, however, not prevent music lobbying schools or governments to ensure that in all or most cases, music is one of the selected artforms. We can use the same arguments that we have been using up to now, based on research etc. They are good arguments and we have them in abundance.
- The NAAE formulation was a response to questions from ACARA about the circumstances for which it will write the curricula. For instance, how much weekly class time should be given to each artform. That depends on how much is available in total and how many artforms have to be fitted into it. Five artforms into five hours is great, but how likely is it? Five artforms into two hours is terrible, but two hours is probably more than most primary schools are giving now. How would untrained teachers even fill two hours? Two artforms into two hours would support decent curricula…You can see the line of thinking. What assumptions can be made?
- As noted at the top of the paper, the Australian Primary Principals Association excluded the arts from its four core subjects and has been impervious to protest. We have no reason to accept APPA’s formulation, but nevertheless, it is better that it is not an active opposition. It accepted the NAAE position as ‘reasonable’, ‘achieveable’. (Maybe it’s too reasonable?)
- What other alternatives are there?
What should be in the music curriculum?
- There seems to be agreement across the artform reps in the ACARA reference group that fundamentally, the curricula should be about making art – for music, creating, playing.
- All the research showing the benefits of music education that I can think of is based on the results of music-making. It is in music-making that we find the special advantages of music education – the integration of the cognitive, affective, kinaesthetic, the special effects on self-confidence, socialisation, self-discipline and so on. These benefits to students are also our best advocacy arguments.
- There are other more particular issues:
- Singing as the basis of the music-making curriculum
- But wherever possible, instrumental playing too
- Arguments about which genres should be included: pop, classical, jazz, non-Western
- Inclusion of history, music analysis, theory etc
- Inclusion of technology
External providers
A few thoughts.
- If we are to teach even an adequate music curriculum, we will need many more musically skilled teachers. If every primary classroom was served by a specialist music teacher, we would need thousands of new teachers. Where do we find them and how do we train them?
- Well, there’s a lot of trained musicians who might be recruited into the schools if the regulations were changed and the employment conditions considered their needs along with everyone else’s.
- In NSW, for one, a person qualified only as a specialist music teacher cannot be employed as a primary school teacher, under the regulations, even if they will teach only music. Every teacher must have a generalist classroom qualification. This in a situation where music is mandatory but the classroom teachers are not trained to teach it. Is this sane?
- Why not make it attractive for trained musicians to teach in schools, rather than an obstacle course?
- In England, schools are served by a “music service”, a stable of trained music specialists that can assure standards, encourage innovation, offer collegiality that may be missing for school-based music teachers.
- In Australia, we have organisations such as Musica Viva and the Song Room that bring visiting musicians to perform in classrooms and offer professional development to classroom teachers. As it stands, such a service does not meet our objective of providing continuous education. But there would be something to be said for expanding those services, basing the entire music curriculum around such visits from live musicians and contracting out the provision of music education to these or similar organisations, provided that it is based on music-making and is continuous, sequential and developmental.
- In Australia, we also have service programs under the education departments, such as those that offer instrumental instruction in WA and SA. SA is conducting some interesting experiments to broaden the approach, including such improbabilities as whole-of-class instrumental learning (apparently interestingly successful so far).
- This is in fact a time of paradigm shift in a number of programs around the world. We want to achieve high standards but we could let our imaginations loose about how to get there.
Your chance for discussion
- There will be an opportunity to make submissions directly to ACARA
- However, if you would like to comment on the points offered above, or test or discuss your own ideas before going to ACARA, you can do so here: below, in comments.
Footnotes
1) The 5 hours cultural entitlement – and note the use of the term culture NOT arts – is linked to the Find Your Talent initiative which was launched last year. It is echoing the 5 hour sports offer and includes time a child may spend in or out of school. So far 10 “pathfinders” ie regional consortia of organisations, local authorities, schools etc are piloting what a 5 hour cultural offer would look like and piloting activities.
The difference between arts and culture is crucial as culture includes museums, archives and libraries which is not “art” necessarily.
You can find both on the internet:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/primarycurriculumreview/
http://www.findyourtalent.org/
(Thanks to Veronica Jobbins in the UK.)
[This post was updated with minor corrections and additional information on: 03/10/2009, 05/10/2009]
{ 19 } Comments
MCA’s analysis seems a litle light-on as far as high school National curriculum goes. Lack of specialists is a big problem, but we shouldn’t take specialists in high school for granted.
What is the benchmarking mechanism for a National music curriculum in either primary ot high school?
It’s true that the MCA position is mainly concerned with primary school. Concerning the benchmarking mechanism, that is for ACARA to decide, although you could make a proposal to it. There are benchmarks in the National Review of School Music Education of which ACARA is aware.
The National Review was itself ‘light’ on recent research in neurology, music therapy, anthropology and the synthesis that arises from these that suggests music is hard-wired into the genetic bases of human behaviour because it provided adaptive advantages prior to the development of language. While language in education is clearly of high significance, it may be damaging both to individuals and society to assume it to be suitable to treat it as the exclusive medium of instruction from an early age. Some evidence would suggest that absence of musical play and socially-co-ordinated musical participation is contributing to raised levels of dyslexia and ADHD. Children fully involved in music-making with their peers and with adults who provide appropriate leadership for the activity may cope better with other demands on their developing skills.
Given that ‘prevention is better than cure’ and the aim of education should be to allow each individual to fulfill his or her potential within the social context represented by schools, why would any government not wish to invest in an activity that has had a proven role in child-rearing and the transmission of culture for thousands of years?
Music is possibly one of the most constructive and self esteem building “social outlets” – particularly for teenagers – and obviously better instruction at primary level will speed things up for high school music teachers.
From my experience, music programs that link in with instrumental programs are the most beneficial.
Singing, clapping and dancing are one thing, but getting fully functional rock bands in classrooms are really not that difficult – even if the teacher only has very basic experience in say, drums, keyboard, guitar/bass and singing.
Take that to school assembly and a couple of lunchtime concerts, and the program grows itself!
Getting working, professional musicians teaching makes total sense to me, in the same way that it makes no sense for a P.E. teacher to teach Geography… unless of course they have training and a passion for both!
I have been a private music teacher on the guitar for nearly 50 years. My comments below relate particularly to the teaching of the guitar in school classrooms, as I see it, ie., from the outside looking in and having to deal with the disasters that emerges from the system.
Last month, I had five of my students sit for their music practical examinations for the NSW HSC and they have all done well (according to their own expectations). They all expressed the opinion that the tuition from their school music teachers was of little or no relevence to their performances and of not much more value to their preparation for the coming formal examinations. This is a sad indictment of the situation as it exists by the ones at the cutting edge.
When new students who learn guitar at high school enrol with me, their level of musical literacy is negligible, misdirected and misinformed, thereby useless. They do not enjoy hearing, “Let’s start again”. The standard of music pages given as class work or set assessment tasks is miserably inadequate from any musical point of view. Students of mine who are in Years 8 and 9 are offered TAB pages (or worse), are given no alternative to the tasks, and certainly nothing in conventional notation (either notated alternatively or included on the pages). They find that there is no acknowledgement of their skills and no encouragement to participate except to “toe the line”. This is another sad indictment of the situation.
Teachers of other instruments in my area find the same concentration on quick results with no underpinning with knowledge. In particular, guitar players are not seen as players of conventional notation. The songs chosen as classroom tasks are very limited in scope. There is an urgency on making one song sound “right”, not on fostering a genuine interest in the instrument. With such a huge emphasis on guitar in the high school curriculum, it is a shame that the instrument is so badly taught. Once more, a sad indictment of the situation.
Guitar players are treated as a breed of musicians apart from the others. Lack of literacy encourages and confirms this. Some very accomplished guitar players have been sidelined from many school concert bands because of the lack of readable or playable scores. They are just not welcomed. Again, another sad indictment of the situation.
Three more points. One, I cannot understand the fact that the portability of musical literacy, from instrument to instrument and/or voice, is not encouraged. Two, there is little or no musical appreciation given as part of the learning to widen the listening experience. Three, the willingness of many matesy teachers to be seen as “with it” and “cool” by bowing to the dictates of the commercial interests of the music industry in the songs that are chosen. These are, again, sad indictments of the situation.
Lastly, “music” is not about looking and sounding like the latest video clip. It is not about gear. It is not about electronics. It is not about fashion. It is not about the latest dance moves. It is not about being cast as the leading role performer in the year’s school musical. All these are called “entertainment”. Participation in the various rock music group competitions is hardly about music. These competitions are dance, miming and art based, with little or no actual live music in the performance and would be better taught by the physical education and art staff. Tuition in “performance”, ie., musical theatre, should not be considered as part of the school music curriculum (many a school has been duped into this way of thinking). All these activites are, however, wonderful social opportunities with considerable learning benefits … but they are not classroom music acquisitive skills opportunities. Video did kill the radio star back in the 1980s but that was about entertainment, too. Video will never kill music. It just feeds off it.
The pleasure one can derive either singly or with others through the acquired skill of music making is a truly wonderful experience. This is what should be encouraged. Musical literacy is the pathway that leads to this. So, too, is music learning. Music learning in high school should lead students to joys of all forms of music in an atmosphere that is free of commercial dictates. It should also offer the benefits of music to intellectual and social development.
As a primary school music teacher I am naturally in favour of universal, high quality music education in primary schools as I daily see the benefit it give the 300 kids at my school. However I would hate to see music become another high stakes “testable” subject with the same levels of anxiety that parents now have about literacy and numeracy. The greatest thing music gives my students is a sense of joy. Will we ever see “joy” listed as a curriculum outcome?
I would also like to see better support systems for music specialists as they begin their careers. I was lucky enough to begin teaching music in Canada where the school board hires not only music teachers but city-wide music consultants who are able to offer support and networking opportunities to music teachers.
I think it important that we do not try to solve all the music education issues, prevalent over many decades, just through the curriculum. It is really important that the actual curriculum provides current music educators (at all levels) and potential future music educators with a rich, sufficiently detailed and accurate developmental resource. There are models in existence to draw upon. The new Tasmanian document, though not perfect, is really good and certainly worth referencing. The NSW document is also worthy. The assessment models supporting the Victorian document are also excellent. And of course, the NRSM has some excellent ideas. The wheel is already a perfectly adequate shape and quite functional! Worth reviewing its development before deciding a triangle might be more effective. The curriculum needs to walk the wire between syllabus with no flexibility of content, and broad-based curriculum which lacks detail. It must concurrently cater for the needs of indigenous pupils in small communities, children in inner urban and rural communities, the musically savvy and musically deprived, all from a wealth of diverse backgrounds and with a wealth of differing musical needs. But it must also be rigorous in content. It must also be in keeping with the structure and drive of other curriculum areas or it (and the other arts) can become the elephant in the room (when we are all about aesthetics!). The curriculum should act as a springboard to help generate (demand!) the required resources and policies for its implementation – rather than the other way around (so let’s punch high). I believe it is the role of all music education organisations to continue to go into bat with governments on both sides of the fence to assist generating this resourcing and, indeed, help provide it – coz then you get what you want ………………………. eventually. I think your idea of extending the role of organisations such as Musica Viva in Schools, Music Room (and the orchestra education suppliers) is an excellent one, Dick, and would ameliorate a whole heap of problems for many people. Also think mentoring programs, online PD etc need to be implemented with existing classroom teachers in primary schools, rather than only targeting teacher trainees. The wondrous Music Count Us In program needs to demonstrably meet outcomes of current music (arts) curricula in the development of its resources which can be stretched beyond the teaching of one song. Good idea to advertise their significance as an ongoing music education resource, not just for a one-off event and need to be made available on this basis. This will assist with efforts for future funding. Promise I’ll stop now.
Leaving the other arts aside for the minute, music is a very broad topic and includes everything from music experience (whatever that is) to music performance, and includes all the things in between, such as music literacy, theory, instrument learning – including voice, percussion and a great deal more besides.
It is also an immensely complicated topic; however, lucky for us there are some excellent examples of successful systems throughout the world which we really should be examining before leaping into conclusions as to how we might deliver such things. It behoves us to do the research before we all form some sort of conclusion as to what we best could deliver in schools or in our communities – and that goes for all the Arts.
I am sure that Dick can provide a wealth of information here in the music sphere, and there are links such as this one which although annoyingly brief, do shed light on such systems:
- http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos/overview+of+music+education+in+finland
and:
http://www.musiikkioppilaitokset.org/index.php?mid=441
Interestingly Timo Klemettinen, the Managing Director, Association of Finnish Music Schools, states from the outset, that their initial problem was lack of trained music teachers, so their very first action was to spend time developing those resources which took a while before they could then deploy them. So clearly this will probably be our goal too here in Australia.
There are other countries who have tackled this problem too and have been immensely successful – for example, Venezuela’s El Sistema has over 350,000 children engaged in music instrument and choral education programs across the country, through the development of a well funded nationally based youth and children’s orchestral and choral music program. Over a million children have been involved in the Venezuelan system and it has produced some outstanding social and musical results. See: http://www.fesnojiv.gob.ve/en/el-sistema. Like the Finnish system, they based it on on regional music centres outside the school times rather than a school-time centric solution.
The key to everything in this is funding. Without proper funding the entire possibility for real music education will be severely limited. It was one of the key factors in both the Finnish and Venezuelan systems and will be for us too. We too need this to be made very clear from the outset.
My personal view is that we take a very gradual approach to the development of music education in the National Curriculum, develop our resources and structures as we go. Also that we utilise every music resource we can take advantage of – which includes, regional conservatoriums of music, organisations such as Music Viva, The Australian Children’s Music Foundation, The Song Room, education outreach programs offered by our state orchestras, and independent orchestras. university schools of music and conservertories, and any other private worthwhile and qualified music centres offering music instruction and education… not to forget the many hundreds of private music teachers around the country who might well be the solution in themselves!
Check this out! It’s a blueprint for arts legislation using external resources – licenced “education providers”:
http://www.musiikkioppilaitokset.org/easydata/customers/sml/files/TPOtaiteet/Laki_taiteen_perusopetuksesta_21.eng1.pdf
I also believe that an instrument and choral system in tandem are critical and music standards be based around the Australian Music Examinations Board (AMEB) mechanisms both in theory and individual instrument performance – this will make it as straight forward as possible as it is already an established mechanism for education standards and levels.
Also – technology. We need to take advantage of the new Broadband network, so we can deliver good music education to remote schools and communities as though they were in the same room and city as the offering. With high bandwidth systems, full digital videoconferencing and training courses can be delivered wonderfully across our wide brown land. It will make it far more reasonable for a school to offer multiple arts education – rather than having to pick and choose which arts subject they can manage. If someone can place the entire Australian High School Maths syllabus online (http://www.mathsonline.com.au/) we can do the same with music theory – at all levels. And that will directly address the lack of teaching resourcing.
So really there is much to think about and discuss in this topic – long before we have the debate about, “which arts?”
My two-penneth.
There needs to be an attitude change across the whole system. Sport is given up to 3 hours within the teaching week, far out doing the amount of time it should have and what is given to Music, Dance or Drama. Visual Arts is also given more time aswell. My experience as a teacher for 17 years, is that teachers feel comfortable teaching Vis Arts and Sport so therefore will do this over Music, Dance and Drama which they don’t feel comfortable teaching. They perceive it as being something you need to have a talent in before you can teach it. Universities need to step up to the mark and prepare teachers to teach music properly, give it the respect it deserves and the time it needs. The school community then needs to follow this and give music the time and respect it needs. We give children time to create pieces of writing and go through the publishing process of draft through to finsihed work so why don’t we do the same for music? One needs time to compose, rethink, change and re compose. Otherwise bring on the music specialist teachers!
My concern about a national music curriculum is on its acceptance. I have witnessed (and experienced) the pain of putting together the Western Australian WACE Music Course. A lot of compromise (sometimes more political than educational) had to be made in order to receive support from teachers. WA now has a music syllabus that is quite different from those in other states. It will be an extremely difficult task for the national task force to draft a senior secondary music curriculum that is acceptable by teachers nationally. Good luck!
Do Australian’s (beyond our body of believers who know and value the benefit of music education) really care about music?
Unfortunately i think we are up against a huge cultural wall where singing and music isn’t really seen as being important in our culture.
To get the funding needed to compare with the Finnish and Venezuelen systems or for it to become a key component of the National Curriculum we need a real change in how Australians view music and it’s importance.
The cultural wall which prevents music from being done well in many classrooms relates more to insecurity and lack of confidence than anything. I am a great believer in building strong foundations for music early. To do this, it is essential that all teachers of young children actually reach a confident level of singing, moving and playing. They should not be allowed to qualify without it. In the short courses I run in primary schools, I have never found a child who cannot sing in tune and keep in time with a bit of individual help. Trainee teachers need to be given that opportunity too. look at ‘The Choir of Hard Knocks’. Anyone can do it. Increasing the hours of training for preservice teachers is important, but more important is deciding on ‘what is actually required’ of them. Some will require ‘remedial help’ to get to that level. Some will have to do a lot of work outside of their ‘face to face’ music instruction in order to reach the required standard. But let’s first set that standard. It doesn’t have to be arduous. It could be a lot of fun. I run short programmes in primary schools in which I work with the class teachers and children together, usually three classes at a time for singing and movement. From this, teachers learn the basic principles which enable the children to sing in tune and develop excellent listening skills. I then give remedial help to the children who are not managing to sing in tune or move in time. It doesn’t usually take much to see a huge improvement. At the end of the six week course, we have a concert in which the children have learnt numerous songs, created choreographies etc. After a couple of these courses, very few children are singing out of tune and their listening skills and musicality have improved immensely. Why not do this with our preservice teachers. There is nothing like ‘doing it’ to build confidence.
Go for it … set the standard and if a pre-service teacher has to keep going to remedial classes for months …. so be it. They will get there eventually and our children will benefit from having teachers who are not scared to sing and move and dance. From this foundation in the early grade classrooms, everything follows. Standards can be set higher with instrumental learning. Music specialists don’t have to teach the basics. The musical life of the school and the community can blossom. So I say, let’s be clear, let’s decide on that standard. Raise the bar.
I was primary trained, and then added extra study, to work as a music specialist in primary schools.
This comment is anecdotal and is in support of making singing the basis of music learning for all children.
I worked in a country town in the 1960’s era and gave music lessons to the children at three of the town’s primary schools.
There had been no music programs at the schools before this.
When I left, after two years, the students had progressed from no music experience, to enthusiastic community singing programs, class sight singing[through the use of solfa,pitching keys with a tuning fork]
Reading, and successfully playing from, multi – instrument percussion scores and commencing, from year three up, recorder consort groups.
For the first six months all music was associated with singing before moving gradually towards the basic instrumental programs using percussion and recorders.
The hardest part of the task was working towards developing support from the classroom teachers who gradually came on board with my program when they saw that the children enjoyed, and were benefiting from their participation in music.
I have used this approach at any school in which I have worked.
I have been at my present school for many years and have been able to add a Choir program for students from years three to six. The Choir membership includes at least a third of the boys from these levels. It is great to hear children sing in the playground.
Singing is for everyone….the launching pad for playing , creating, dancing, dramatising, alone or with others.
I disagree with people such as MGL who say that music isn’t valued in the Australian culture, because of examples from my own life. For example, evey Saturday I go to a pub and play old-timey music with up to 30 other people from all walks of life. Look at attendence at folk festivals and concerts. I think what music education has to do is recognize different styles of music learning (aural, kinaesthetic, visual) and celebrate music as a part of daily life rather than a rareified subject. I see the problem as one of commodification where our culture sees most people as consumers rather than producers of music.
Today we have posted on the website the MCA study by Rachel Hocking into the mandatory music instruction included in the university training of people who will become primary school classroom teachers. (It’s in the RESEARCH section.) This is the study referred to above that found that this music instruction occupied on average 17 hours out of the average 1,125 total hours instruction for the degree. A little less time on average is given to instruction in other arts subjects — in that company, believe it or not, music is privileged!
1,108 hours is given in total to instruction in other subjects. Clearly, it is understood that for them 17 hours is not enough to produce a competent teacher.
To offer only this amount of music instruction is some sort of charade. What are we pretending that these people will be able to teach? For seven primary school years? What can be the purpose other than to tick a box? I ask these question while knowing that there are university lecturers who use great ingenuity in bringing something worthwhile to their students — but the situation is not fair for them either.
There are studies showing that the effect on the students of so little music instruction can be to convince them of their own incompetence and rob them of any confidence, however unjustifiable, they might have had in introducing music activities in class. Without confidence, they may be inclined to quietly omit music, even where as in NSW, it is a mandatory part of the curriculum.
A solution, as is apparent from the study, is for the accreditation bodies to insist upon an adequate level of competence in music and music teaching as a condition of accreditation and therefore employment.
A more credible solution is to employ music specialists to teach music in primary schools, preferably in collaboration with well-prepared classroom teachers.
I am experienced in both aspects of this discussion:
Trained firstly in music education and now currently a primary school teacher.
I do have a few points to discuss. Firstly in making my transition to a primary school I worked as a music specialist in a primary school, and casually in the classroom as a primary teacher. So the point that trained music teachers are not allowed to teach in the primary school is simply not true. In order for you to have a permanent position with the DET as a primary teacher you do need to have approval K-6.
I have now worked solely as a primary teacher for many years.(remembering that I am a music teacher first) I agree with the point that time is an issue. With obesity an issue, 2.5 hrs is devoted to PDHPE, but don’t forget the mandatory teaching of child protection and so on….easily 3hrs a week. Now given the time left 3 subjects. However Creative Arts with 4 of its own subjects simply comes down to 30 mins max each. Now any primary teacher will tell you that 30 mins is not realistic amount of time to teach anything explicitly. Qulaity Teaching requires connectedness, deep understanding and a host of other requirements.
Now here is the bombshell…with all of the mandatory pressures…I simply do not have time to teach the music curriculum as it stands. Not because I dont have the confidence or required training….but because of time.
Now if that is how a music teacher in a primary curriculum is feeling, think about those teachers without the same level of training. We need to give them more support in the classroom first to even get through the day, let alone put more pressures on them.
We need RFF music teachers in every school. My RFF teacher does novel study in all stage 3 classes….not very specialist.
There are music specialists working in public schools. I am one of them. This was achieved with the support of the school principal at Haberfield PS & gaining K-6 accreditation.
Haberfield Music Program K-6
Rationale
We are educating students for a future which we unable to predict. The essential skills they will need are creativity, problem solving & flexibility, all abstract skills.
Music is the only area of human endeavour which operates in both the abstract & non-abstract, & in human development evolves before language or mathematical thinking.
Classroom teachers at Haberfield felt music was the area which required a specialist teacher, while in other Arts areas such as Visual Arts, Drama, Dance and Multi-Media they had teachers with required skills.
Program at Haberfield is:
1. Sequential from K-4 years 30 min per week & in years 5 & 6 1 hour per week.
2. Taught by music specialists.
3. Teachers from K-4 attend music classes for professional development & to incorporate music education into their class programs.
4. Program focuses on skill development & assessment in areas of singing, playing (recorder & percussion), moving/dancing, listening & composing (organising sound).
5. Extra-curricular opportunities provided in Infant, Junior & Senior Choirs (no cost), Junior, intermediate & Senior Bands (fee based), Recorder Ensemble (no cost) & String Ensemble (fee based).
6. Visiting professional musicians offer instrumental lessons on a fee basis to students.
Outcomes:
1. While general teaching standards at Hablerfield have always been high, SMART data for NAPLAN & its predecessor Basis Skills has shown a continuos improvement in all student outcomes during the 7 years the music education program has been operating.
2. Musical assessments have shown students skills continue to improve with younger students achieving higher outcomes each year.
3. Students participation in extra-curricular music activities has grown from 30 students to over 200 out of 600 students at Haberfield. This has resulted in a much more socially harmonious school environment.
David Collins-White
Co-ordinator Creative & Performing Arts, Haberfield Public School.
I am a pre-service teacher with a music qualification. I have been teaching singing and directing groups such as choirs and musical societies for over 14 years, but am unqualified to teach classroom music. I decided to do my teacher training so that I could share my specialist skills with the children and hopefully inspire in them the love of music that I have. How can I do that in one 30min session a week? (We must remember that that equates to about 15mins by the time they get there and settle for the lesson.) The point I guess I am making is that even with a qualified music teacher there is still not enough time to impart enough knowledge to set the children off on their lifelong musical journey.
I have been a private music teacher in piano, keyboard and guitar for a long time, have attained a Bachelor of Music degree, a Certificate Teacher of music Australia from AMEB, am also a Licensed Kindermusik educator and am currently studying for a Postgraduate Diploma of Education with a music specialisation . I have also taught primary classroom music for 4 years and Kindergarten.I became redundant when ‘my school’ came online because I was not a registered teacher and due to financial resources. I was replaced with a generalist classroom teacher with no musical experience. I had built up the music resources at the school and now they gather dust. How do I feel?? Disappointed, sorry for the kids who are no longer getting a quality music education just singing and dancing-not that there’s anything wrong with singing and dancing. I believe that the kids deserve and need more than that. I wanted to teach highschool music but unfortunately was never asked, even though I offered an Options session. Afterschool was taken up with sport and more sport.There is a misconception that Queensland offers Primary music in most schools. Music may be being offered, but not by qualified music specialists and definitely not in all schools. A study of the music programs offered,delivered and by whom in Queensland would reveal the true situation.
Post a Comment