The Henley Review

It is a fact of life that optimists never quite get what they hope for (though generally don’t mind too much), and pessimists are often pleasantly surprised (though don’t expect it to last). Music services, it would seem, are largely optimistic in their intentions, but pessimistic in their actions. So last week, when the long-awaited review into music education was published (here), music services preparing for the worst were largely satisfied with the outcome – at least for the time being, anyway.

The government response (here) starts to act upon some of the recommendations of the review, but Henley also calls on other organisations to take action, and so there have, in turn, been responses from the Federation of Music Services, Arts Council England, Youth Music and just about any organisation with an interest in music education – there’s actually a surprisingly large number, which is in itself enlightening, but more on that later. I thought it might be worth picking through the review, the government response and anything interesting thrown up in responses from other interested parties.

Firstly, the good news – funding for 2011-12 has been fixed at the current level, and ring-fenced for music. This means that the core funding for music services has remained unchanged – at least for another year anyway – which many music services are unsurprisingly very happy about indeed.

And then it dawned on me – that’s about the only outcome that is definitely good news. Other outcomes depend heavily upon the actions of all interested parties, so whether or not they are good news remains to be seen. Having said this, many outcomes and recommendations have the potential to be good news:

• The National Plan for Music Education. In theory, there should be a clear pathway from the very first musical encounters for every pupil in the country, through to the top national youth ensembles for the most talented young musicians. Crucially, this pathway should be consistent across the country. Yes, here the review is stating the bloody obvious, but it is absolutely needed – the system is currently a mess. But, and its the first of many in this blog entry, it will only work if it is done properly – thorough consultation, thorough scope and wholly embraced by music services and music education organisations across the country. Time will tell.

• Making Wider Opportunities compulsory. Recommendation 3 of the review is quite explicit in suggesting that the Wider Opportunities scheme of whole-class instrumental teaching should be extended and made compulsory in all primary schools. It’s a lovely idea and one which I hope will happen, but given the current 5-year scheme was designed to ensure every school was covered over the course of 5 years, it would seem virtually impossible to ensure every school was covered every year with the current funding structure. More money would be needed, and for the time being that simply won’t happen; the government has said that ‘every child should have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument’, but words like ‘should’ and ‘opportunity’ are woolly and non-committal.

• Sing Up. This has been hugely successful over recent years, and it is good that the government recognises this. Of course, the huge quantities of money put forward for the scheme couldn’t last forever, so I suppose we should be grateful that it’s getting anything at all next year – £500,000 is not to be sniffed at but it is a fraction of previous years. The review suggests the scheme is run by Youth Music, but their response is cautious, with concerns about the level of funding needed if it is to be as successful as it has been to date. The government says that the Arts Council and Youth Music will have to decide for themselves how much is given to Sing Up, which suggests they will pull the plug in the not too distant future.

• Teaching. The proposed qualification of  ‘Qualified Music Educator’, if implemented would finally give proper recognition to instrumental teaching on a level with classroom teaching. The government response suggests it might happen too. However, the ‘Teach Music First’ scheme is a waste of space; yes, it would be good to draw on the talent in conservatoires (students at the RNCM already have the option of completing their undergraduate degree with Qualified Teacher Status, so it’s not a new idea), but talented instrumentalists will not necessarily make good teachers, and I fear many of them would be crucified in the sorts of ‘challenging’ schools used in the Teach First scheme.

• Instrument Procurement. This is a simple but quite intelligent idea – that instruments bought for use by music services are obtained through a centralised national scheme, using the principle that buying in bulk is cheaper. Providing the right instruments are chosen, and it is managed properly, it is a genuine way for all music services to save money.

• Refocusing of Arts Council funding. According to the review:

There is a perception that not every arts organisation provides projects that are focused on learning objectives that tie in with the rest of the child’s education. In some instances, projects are provided because they are convenient for the arts organisation, with little regard to the needs of the schools concerned.

In response to this, the Arts Council has said:

We agree that an over-reliance on projects rather than sustained activity (partly due to project-based funding mechanisms) has sometimes contributed to a lack of clarity on all sides about how to focus that activity around a common objective.

In other words, the Arts Council gives money to organisations to do nice little projects that are fun but pretty meaningless. The solution, however, is not only for the Arts Council to ensure that it gives money to the right people, but that the education departments of these organisations are given proper training to ensure they are aware of what is expected of the projects they are designing.

• Ofsted. The involvement of Ofsted in music education should be seen as a positive step. Too many music services (and indeed arts organisations) get away with murder because no-one is actually checking whether the tuition they are providing is of a  suitable quality. The good providers of music education will have little to worry about; the poor providers will get a much needed kick up the backside.

Of course, it’s not all sunshine and roses…

• Local government funding. Although not discussed in much depth in the report, music services which currently receive additional funding from local government are likely to suffer from the cuts to government funding, as this money is not ring-fenced.  Councils will invariably focus on core services – if they can’t even afford to keep libraries, sports centres and toilets open, then there’s not much hope for music. One hope in these instances is that councils will instead offer support ‘in kind’, by way of administrative support, office space and so on. One can’t help but expect the council bigwigs in their ivory towers to see the funding settlement as ‘generous’ and slash the local budget for music activities. Let’s hope they have the good sense to do otherwise.

• 2012. Unfortunately, the big worry is what happens from 2012. Talk of a ‘National Funding Model’ suggests that money will not be distributed evenly, with more money given to those areas deemed to have the greater need. How the government defines ‘greater need’ could be interesting, but at this stage it is only speculation. On the other hand, post-2012 is also post-Olympics, and hopefully at least some of the vast quantity of lottery money that has been diverted to supporting the Olympics will return to the arts, and indeed music education.

• Overlap and inconsistency. One of the review’s few major criticisms is towards the disparate and sporadic approach to music education. Aside from the glaringly obvious problem that each music service has a completely different approach towards it with vastly differing levels of success (hopefully to be tackled by the National Plan), that there are so many different organisations supporting music education is clearly a problem in itself:

At present, the sheer number of representative bodies makes it almost impossible to hold a meaningful dialogue… their arguments can sometimes be both poorly made and contradictory. This is to the detriment of Music Education as a whole and is an issue which urgently needs to be grasped and rectified from within by Music Educators themselves.

Henley recommends that organisations not only collaborate but merge, to create a greater degree of focus. The process of merging organisations won’t be easy, and it appears that it is not something the government wants to get involved with – it is very much down to the organisations to sort this out between themselves. So, erm, do, please. Today there was a good start – the announcement of a partnership between the NUT and the Musicians’ Union – but we need much more than this for progress to be made.

• Music in the curriculum. This is clearly a moot point. The review is quite categoric – that music should remain on the National Curriculum at least as far as Key Stage 3, and that music should be an option in the GCSE-level ‘English Baccalaureate’. I can understand why the government has sat on the fence regarding music’s place in the curriculum – a review into the whole curriculum is being conducted and to pre-empt that in any way would undermine the individuals carrying out that review – but it is also easy to see why music education organisations are a bit worried by the lack of positive response. As for the English Baccalaureate, the government’s response doesn’t mention it at all, which is a little disappointing. Let’s hope schools will continue to offer some form of GCSE-level qualification in music, regardless of the Baccalaureate’s many flaws.

• Classical bias. Youth Music highlights the review’s strong classical bias. Given the review was conducted by the Chief Executive of Classic FM, I’m not entirely sure why anyone is surprised by this, but other forms of music do need to be given consideration.

There is much to be hopeful about, especially if the review’s proposals are implemented, and a new framework for music education is established. However, the knowledge that funding is likely to be reduced from 2012 – supposedly by no more than 10%, although many aren’t counting their chickens – will not fill music educators with confidence. With no clue yet as to the direction of music education beyond 2012, the review has answered some questions but posed a great many more. It is time, once again, to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst – something that music services have become quite adept at in recent years.