I had a really helpful meeting yesterday with a colleague who is in charge of managing a hub.

We were talking about the hubs’ role of challenging and supporting schools in providing ALL their students with an entitlement to a good music education. The funding for this is provided to schools directly as part of their responsibility to provide a broad and balanced curriculum or under the national curriculum, if that applies to them.

We also discussed the responsibility of the hubs to augment the schools’ provision through the (reduced) central funding and how it is so important to ensure that this money is well spent, not used to paper over the cracks of an inadequate music offer – or, to quote a more often used analogy, to put icing on a poor cake making it seem better than it really is.

In the past we have been complicit (for the best possible motives) in providing funding and music making opportunities to schools that provide an inadequate basic music education for their young people. We have provided them with the icing and a beautifully decorated cake, the substance of which was poor.

Hubs now have even less funding to augment the core music curriculum or to provide opportunities beyond those which an individual school can offer. It is therefore essential that those funds are used to help young people whose schools take full responsibility for what they do with their own funds. Not to do this is abdicating our responsibility to young people; wasting public funds and reinforcing behaviour that needs to change. We must still strive to help the others, but they must accept their responsibility and show a genuine desire and commitment to improve their offer for young people.

During the course of the conversation a fresh perspective occurred to me. Perhaps it is more like building a house on sand? If we continue to support poor practice without putting in place the support needed, paid for by the school because it wants to improve its music provision, we are in effect miss-spending the scarce centrally held funds, protected for music, and given to us as the people who should know best. If the foundations of a really good curriculum are not provided by the school,
no matter how good the opportunities we provide, no matter how nice a house we build, the likelihood is that it will fall down and we will not have provided value for money or helped the young people in the long run.

First access programmes should be complementing and enhancing a good music curriculum.

Affordable and accessible progression routes for those who want to continue are of equal importance to the opportunity for young people to learn in the first instance. The same applies to the provision of appropriate ensembles. These core criteria are not hierarchical. They are of equal importance. Indeed, I would argue that we should not be giving young people First Access if we cannot enable them to continue after their first free period.

If we uphold quality and entitlement for all young people then the expertise of the hub and the reduced central funding will enable significant numbers of young people to have a good music education. When the economy picks up we will have the arguments and the evidence for increased funding so that, by 2020, the aspirations of the National Plan can become a reality for all young people. Is that a fresh perspective? It is certainly the one I have been aspiring to for the whole of my career and the one that I will continue to fight for. Together I still believe we can make this dream a reality. But it requires all of us to stand up for quality music education for young people. If not us, then who do we think is going to do it?

I have been in Sweden over the past 4 days as part of the voluntary work I do for Sistema Europe. If you have already heard about Sistema and decided it is not for you, please read on!

Once again I was reminded that, with effective partnerships between organisations, and with people who are prepared to work together for the good of the children and young people, their families and communities, the outcomes can be truly remarkable.

The potential tensions between music for itself and as a social tool were there as were the potential conflicts between those who believe in more ‘traditional’ methods and those who see the importance of the ‘Sistema’ ensemble approach. Nevertheless, I found a refreshing openness and willingness to acknowledge and address these issues – all for the good of the child. What makes such a difference for all of these people is seeing, at first hand, how the power of music is transforming lives.

This generosity of spirit extends internationally. Colleagues from Sistema Scotland supported Sweden in getting to where they are now. Sweden is in turn supporting others through contacts made via Sistema Europe. Sistema Europe is linked to Sistema Global. All are united by the passion and commitment of a social action programme delivered through excellence in  music. A programme that, when implemented properly, provides excellent value for money. Yes, it is expensive if viewed as a music education programme, but it is so much more than that. Beware the fakes, the imposters, the cheaper, Sistema-lite projects that don’t adopt the values and ethos and that use the name only to get funding for what are really no more than music education programmes. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. It is a challenge, for the highly visible output of Sistema is musical. But the difference is easy to spot. It is how the programme works with the children, their families, schools and communities that makes the difference.

England leads the world with some of its music education practices, but we can also learn much from the rest of the world about how to do this even more effectively, reaching out to be genuinely inclusive and enabling all who wish to continue to make music in and through ensembles. Sistema is about genuine access and inclusion where the child is supported to engage and helped, together with their families, to overcome those challenges that would have defeated many of us if we had been in similar circumstances.

The best Sistema-inspired programmes are also reaching out to find how they can work more effectively, in genuine partnership and collaboration so that the young people they nurture and support can join other successful ensembles as they progress. Together we can collectively make a real difference to all young people throughout the world! Now isn’t that something worth fighting for?

……is that it is so important to so many people for so many different reasons. It is a very important part of the lives of almost everyone. This may be listening to music, participating as an amateur, engaging for recreational or for health purposes, as a career, as a source of income or for other reasons.

At the 8^th Research Into Music Education (RIME) conference this week in a session on ‘Changing contexts, evolving perspectives: Re-appraising music in higher education’ there were strong arguments made as to why music sits within humanity faculties in many universities – not the arts. Katie Overy gave an engaging and informative keynote on ‘the musical brain’. Many of the delegates were sociologists as well as musicians. Sistema, a social action programme using excellence in music; the German ‘Every Child an Instrument’; and England’s First Access whole class ensemble programmes were discussed. At the same time there were calls for the importance of music for its own sake not for its utilitarian values. I could go on….

And of course, they are all right. Better still, one function of music doesn’t have to eclipse another. What is it? Why are we doing it? Who is it for? What happens next? All become important questions for those who wish to get on with important business of engaging directly with music as active or passive participants. (Though I would argue that listening – often considered to be passive is often active too).

Policy makers and funders create frameworks and provide the wherewithal for music to take place. What we do within those frameworks and with that funding is up to us. Debates about: What is it? Why are we doing it? Who is it for? What happens next? are debates we must have as a music sector. They already happen in small pockets between small groups of individuals all over the place. Now is the time for music organisations to support and facilitate similar debates. If we can be smarter about how we communicate the importance of music, and to whom, we will be ready to benefit from the improvement in the economic situation when it finally comes. The fact that music cuts across so many areas means that there are many more places to seek funding but lots of policy areas to influence.

During my year as President of the ISM I will be doing my part to try to make a difference. I am also on the executive of the Music Education Council, a member of Music Mark and the SMA. Do let me know how I can be most supportive to you in this essential work and this critical time. halla@globalnet.co.uk 07850634239

53 plus 4 equals 1 (57 varieties or one voice?)

Not sure of the relevance of this? Bear with me and read on.

After a week off at Easter, the ISM conference became the 4^th conference I had attended in 5 weeks. There was a small overlap with delegates who had attended the previous three conferences, but once again a committed  and passionate group of musicians and music educators met together in the stunning surroundings of Queens’ College Cambridge for the musical equivalent of a gastronomic delight of the highest quality. (Actually the food was great too).

High quality music and stimulating discussions were in evidence everywhere. A fabulous jazz quartet (4) got us off to a brilliant start, followed by panel discussions on the future of music education, audience development and venues (12) with good participation from delegates. An interview with John Rutter by Oliver Condy (2) was entertaining as well as informative. Three new compositions by young composers (3) received their world premiers in the superb acoustics of the college chapel, expertly sung by a very talented group of young singers, (22) ably conducted by ISM’s President, Suzi Digby (1). On day 2 Melvyn Tan (1) led a Messiaen masterclass with another 5 exceptionally talented young musicians and we were treated to the most evocative and moving performance of Quatuor
pour la fin du temps by Melvyn on piano, Mark Simpson (clarinet), Jack Liebeck (vioin) and Guy Johnson (cello) (+3).

So why did I decide to blog on this topic?

First because, when I mentioned to colleagues that I was to be President of the ISM (2013/2014), I encountered lots of misunderstandings about what the ISM is and who it is for. Essentially, the ISM champions the importance of music and sets out to protect the rights of all of those  working in music. It has members for whom it provides a range of support services, including a register of teachers and bespoke legal and insurance cover. The ISM provides CPD and is a member of the council of subject associations. I could go on, but if you are interested, you can find out more at http://www.ism.org/ . 

My second reason follows on from recent blogs in which I have exhorted colleagues to work together for the overall good of music education and lifelong learning – particularly in respect of school aged young people – in and out of school.

In my semi-retirement, I am fortunate to have been able to prioritise the time to attend all of these conferences. Financially, I am also very fortunate to be able to afford to spend time not earning and pay for my own travel, accommodation and conference fees. Both of these are important considerations for colleagues who, by attending conferences are missing teaching or working with the young people, not earning and having to fund themselves or be paid for by cash strapped organisations!

There was a remarkable coherence from the 53 voices at the ISM conference – quality, passion, commitment, inspiration, inclusion, progression etc. And there were similar messages across all four conferences. As a sector we do have a common message. We do speak with a single voice. But too often we still speak alone. Organisations too can work more effectively together for the greater good. That is the responsibility of those leading the organisations. As the current President of the ISM I am one of those leaders and I hereby publicly commit to trying to do this. I look forward to working with other colleagues to the same ends. If you are not already a member of a professional organisation, join one. Use its communications channels to ensure that the leaders stay in touch with the essential work you do on the ground so that we continue to fight for the policies and funding to enable you, through music, to use the power of music to transform lives for the better.

Together we CAN make a difference.

I have just attended my third major event in three weeks: Westminster Education Forum; Future Play and the Music Education Expo. Each time I was inspired by the sheer passion and commitment of colleagues in the world of music and their desire to share their expertise with young people. Over 200 people contributed to the debates on the future of the national curriculum; a further 200+ were looking at Music Systems for the 21^st century, inspired by Dudamel, the LA Phil, HOLA and YOLA - their programmes for communities and young people – and over 2000 attended seminars and workshops at the Expo.

Two things struck me: first that there was very little overlap of attendees (not surprising as most people have day jobs and actually work with young people on a regular basis); and second, the messages from the delegates seemed to be largely about the impact of others on us and what  others should do to make things better for us and the young people we care about.

So many of our problems arise from being asked to do ‘important’ or ‘urgent’ things for others that are neither important nor urgent for us. A school SLT demands that we assess every half term using sublevels; or use a lesson plan that works for English or Maths but not for music; or they care more about the extra-curricular showpiece events than they do about the entitlement for all young people through classroom music. Funding bodies ask for information in formats that are different to the ones required by our own parent organisation or accountants, doubling the workload for no extra gain. We are asked to provide information that does not impact on the quality of the experience for young people and not asked for information relating to those things that actually matter. Or at least, that’s how it seems to us.

So, what can we do about it? The good news is that help is at hand, if only we know how to access it!

First, we must take charge of our own actions and take responsibility for how we prioritise our own time. If someone else asks for information by a deadline we can’t meet, or in a format that will require additional work – negotiate an extension or ask why your format is unacceptable. There may be good reasons why you need to comply and it will be less frustrating if you can understand. Consider what would happen if you refuse! Maybe someone else, higher up will get involved and come up with a solution no-one else had the authority to implement. But beware – relationships are easily damaged and take a long time to rebuild. Choose your battles carefully.

Second, talk to others in similar situations to see whether you are the exception or whether they share the same frustrations. How do they manage similar demands? Together you have more chance of effecting change than if you fight battles alone. And we may find we can learn from the best practice of others.

Third, look to sources of authoritative information and people in posts of responsibility who can argue for you or at least signpost you to evidence that will help. Ofsted is clear – THERE ARE NO SUBLEVELS IN MUSIC! Lessons in music should be MUSICAL! Young people should be engaged, motivated and inspired through making music. Yes, you should be supporting the school literacy policy if the students need to do some writing, but that writing and reading should support the music making. Most English department have more staff and more lessons for English. Music teachers are often alone and only have one lesson at KS3 each week – if that! Your time has to be used empowering the young people to access high quality music learning. See the Ofsted YouTube clips and documents: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/our-expert-knowledge/music

Hubs and the National Plan are there to help too. The plan enables schools to challenge what the hubs are doing but also requires the hubs to challenge and support schools and together, to support high quality music
education for young people. Mark Philips(Ofsted) said ‘music teachers in
schools have to be at the heart of the hubs.’ Are you?

Of course, these things take time - time when you could be making music with the young people. But over 20 years of a statutory national curriculum and significant investment of funds have not produced the changes we need. Governments and Ofsted could do more and more money would help. But are we being as effective as we can be to improve matters and provide the evidence for that support from politicians and funders for the future?

Over 2,500 key people, who did find time to go to one or more of those recent conferences can make a difference if we decide to work together on behalf of the young people and high quality music making. We need to commit to working together, put the young people’s music making above any personal agendas we may have, and then reach out to those who have not yet engaged.

If, over the next two years, we can turn 30% of good and outstanding schools into 40% and then 50%, we will show progress that over 5 more years could reach nearly 100%! That way we secure the future of music education and provide the evidence not only for continuing funding, but, when the economy finally starts to pick up, even more funding! And because we will be able to demonstrate we have used the funding well, we are more likely to get it.

As I have argued elsewhere – together we CAN make a difference. Let’s take charge now and secure the future of a music education system that is already the envy of many others around the world so that even more young people can benefit! Is a10% improvement each year too much to ask?

Last week I wrote ‘Together we CAN make a difference’ following my attendance at the Westminster Education Forum. I have just spent three very special days at Future Play: Music Systems in the 21^st Century, presented by the Barbican Centre and LA Phil during their Barbican International Associate Residency with Gustavo Dudamel.

With members from Youth Orchestra Los Angeles and Heart of Los Angeles presenting as well as a keynote from the inspirational Richard Holloway of Sistema Scotland it is not surprising that references to El  Sistema were never far away – indeed, I was attending myself as one of the Directors/Trustees of In Harmony · Sistema England. The openness, generosity of spirit and preparedness of people to give as much time as it takes to young people and to each other that is so much a trademark of El Sistema was evident for all to see with delegates from as far afield as Israel, Germany and Holland as well as the USA.

I can’t begin to do justice to the content of three days of thought provoking presentations and discussions but I was asked to sum up at the end so here, for a wider audience, are what I felt to be some of the key messages that I came away with.

There is more that unites than divides us. Dare we hope that we can build on our common agendas and put our differences behind us – or at least celebrate those differences in a constructive way?

We are all care about sharing with and passing on our passion for music to young people. Dare we hope that the more we work in collaboration and partnership with others, particularly through the new music education hubs, the more, between us we can reach all young people?

There is a rich and diverse range of musical pathways that young people may wish to follow. None of us can provide all of those opportunities alone. Dare we hope that working in genuine partnership we can provide so much more than the sum of our individual parts? Can we find the highest common factor rather than dumbing down to the lowest common denominator?

Creativity at the core.  This includes young people’s own creativity and re-creativity. Dare we hope that we can also be creative enough to find ways of collaborating and providing young people with a coherent whole, rather than competing with each other to the potential detriment of young people?

Young people at the centre. By keeping young people firmly at the centre of our thinking and actions we CAN find a successful way forward together. Together we CAN make a difference. Dare we hope that with the Westminster Education Forum last week; the Education Expo next week; the learning from El Sistema and our own National Plan beginning to bed down, this three week period might just be the point in time when things begin to change noticeably and in a sustainable way for the better?

….and NOW is the time to do it!

At the recent Westminster Education Forum Seminar reviewing the new curriculum for Art and Music there were many positive messages and several clear implications for action. The gauntlet was thrown down. It is up to our own sector to accept the challenge and improve quality. That means you and me taking responsibility, not saying someone else ought to do something about it!

The  difficulty arises from the fact that those same freedoms that enable schools and good teachers to provide an excellent music education also provide the opportunities for poor schools and less confident teachers to continue with poor practice. Mark Phillips, Senior HMI, said “in schools that are most successful, the music curriculum knows no bounds.” We should set out to stretch pupils when they require challenge and support them when they need help. The same applies to schools. Hubs can and do provide that challenge and support – but not all are yet confident or able to do this.

We were presented with evidence that a good national curriculum, Ofsted inspections and funding all help and we do have a great deal of excellent practice. But the same evidence also showed that these policies, inspections and funding have not effected sufficient change for all young people over the past 20 or so years. So what can we do? How do we learn from best practice and from the past? How do we implement change where change is needed?

In best practice there is a clear distinction between the hub (all those who provide music education in an area) and the lead organisation (which provides strategic leadership). Potentially this can get confusing as many lead organisations also provide music education in their area. Even the same individual can provide both strategic and operational leadership. Indeed, there are arguments for why this can be a good thing. But that individual must be clear which hat he or she is wearing, when, and make sure that this is also clear to those with whom they are communicating.

As a top priority, the lead organisation should ensure that someone with sufficient seniority and authority engages systematically with all schools in the area for which the hub has responsibility. That person or those persons need to seek to engage with a person in each school who also has sufficient seniority and authority in the school to effect change where change is needed. This engagement involves carrying out a needs analysis for the individual school, (most schools do this for themselves anyway, but some will need help). The sum total of these analyses provides a picture of the needs analysis for the area, which can, in turn, be translated into an action plan with priorities for the whole area. Initially this plan will cover the 2 remaining years to 2015 for which there is reasonable certainty about the funding, and, in less detail, the next steps for 2015 to 2020 by which time the National Plan for Music Education should have become a reality for all young people.

If a school is not ready to have this conversation, leave the invitation open and offer it again at least once a term or agree to talk to them again next year. Change only happens when people take ownership for their own actions and responsibilities. Hubs cannot change schools any more than teachers can learn for their pupils. Let’s make the good school excellent and help those who want to improve to do so. Those who want to cherry-pick services, who don’t prioritise music for all will come knocking on your door soon enough – especially if their lack of engagement and poor practice are not rewarded. There aren’t enough resources to go round so let’s ensure what we do have is used effectively to bring about change for the better.

Can’t see what this means for you? Get in touch if you think I can help. halla@globalnet.co.uk

Research, results and replicability. Pilots that lead to sustainable practice – or not. Process and product. How do we successfully address the challenges that face us in providing all young people with the highest quality music education? Will we take the opportunity to implement a step change this time around or will we allow yet another opportunity to be lost - possibly with disastrous consequences? All of these thoughts are buzzing around in my head as I reflect, travelling back to England, following attendance at a conference in Belgium entitled ‘The Reflective Teacher’.

I have argued elsewhere[1] that this is a critical time for music education. The kind of music education future generations receive will be a direct consequence of the decisions we, in the music education profession, take now. We can blame politicians, decision makers and funders or we can take responsibility ourselves for what we do with the available resources and opportunities we do have.

What do we need to do? The evidence is there for all to see. We just need to use it – as appropriate – in our own circumstances!

Every child should have access to high quality music education at school. Schools are funded to provide this and heads have a professional responsibility to ensure their teachers are equipped to deliver the curriculum for which they are responsible. Yet Ofsted subject surveys repeatedly report only around one third of schools, primary and secondary, give their students the sort of music education all young people deserve. At primary school level too many general classroom teachers lack the confidence, skills, knowledge and understanding to help their children in music, and at the secondary school level too many music specialists are not giving their Key Stage 3 students a relevant, high quality experience. 

The following responses, from three ‘survivors,’ who had a passion for music and still went on to become teachers, make my point. In response to the question: ‘What do you consider to be the most important influences on your teaching?’ replies included: ‘remembering my own education and the determination that I would never be a dull or unkind teacher’; ‘class music lessons left those who didn’t learn an instrument outside school bewildered and unenthused and those who did un-stimulated, unchallenged and bored’; ‘my early music teaching was a negative, dull and an undermining experience’. These people had support from elsewhere that enabled their musical passion to survive. What about the thousands of children for whom music could transform
their lives but who may never have the opportunity to find out?

Part of the vision behind Wider Opportunities (or whole class instrumental and vocal tuition), now deliberately renamed First Access (or Whole Class Ensemble Tuition), for reasons that are explained elsewhere,
was intended to address these issues. So can we learn from where we went wrong as hubs spend the next £200m of public funds? If we don’t, given the current economic and political climate, the chances of further funding in future are slim indeed and the chances of some head teachers ceasing to offer music in their school at all is a real possibility.

Early this century a few music services piloted Wider Opportunities. Continuation rates of 70% to 100% were achieved. Ofsted reports and guidance papers provided exemplars of best practice. £6m was provided  for local pilots for one year prior to £23m the following year to support local roll out. £40m was found to enable quality instruments to be purchased over a 4 year period as part of a £330m package to support the work of music services. The OU/Trinity won a £3m tender to provide CPD. Charging legislation was amended. Policy, guidance, training, resources were all put in place. There was the potential for a 3-way win! Children would all be able to access music through learning a musical instrument and singing; instrumental teachers would be able to learn more about meeting the needs of all children from the best practice of their class room colleagues; and classroom colleagues who lacked confidence in music would benefit by learning alongside the children week in and week out for a whole year under the tutorship of experts. Later, a fourth win would be possible as these children transferred to secondary school with levels of musical understanding, skill and knowledge that could only  be dreamed of. Yet somehow, so much of this possible future has not been realised.

Of course, pilots, with enthusiastic and committed individuals who are up for the challenge are always more likely to succeed than when programmes are rolled out to everyone. But guidance was ignored. CPD opportunities were not accessed. Poor quality instruments were purchased.
Decisions were not taken on musical or educational grounds. Teachers who were ill-equipped to offer a high quality musical experience were left to sink or swim on their own. Head teachers who offered poor class music opportunities were ‘rewarded’ by ‘free’ opportunities provided by music services or other organisations. It wasn’t the politicians or head teachers who were responsible for this. It was us, the music educational professionals.

Fortunately there were many successes too. These enabled us to secure protected funds for music through to 2015. Hubs now have the duty to challenge and support schools. Hubs can augment school provision and set professional standards of quality for all young people. Hubs are even
encouraged to prioritise Continuing Professional Development, using ‘front line’ funds to ensure young people benefit from high quality teaching. Hubs can ensure that ultimately (the vision of the National Plan is for 2020, not 2015!) all young people have access to a high quality music education including first access to instrumental tuition; the ability to continue with affordable and accessible progression routes; together with ensemble and singing opportunities. Hubs are required to undertake a needs analysis and to work with their schools to prioritise activity. Hubs can help to remove the isolation of the lonely secondary school teacher. Hubs have the opportunity to pull together all public funds and the available expertise in their area, ensuring best value for money is secured and that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Ofsted is providing
support with resources and through visits to schools. 

Will we use the evidence, guidance and examples of the best and most successful to improve music education for all young people? My  reflections have left me determined to help in whatever way I can. Where will your reflections leave you?

I have just visited Venezuela and seen El Sistema in practice, at first hand, for the first time. I have to admit that I went with high expectations and therefore feared that I might be disappointed. Far from it. My highest expectations were exceeded. Does that mean I wasn’t aiming high enough? Definitely not.

I was interested in the process that results in the levels of musical excellence of the Simón Bolívar Orchestra. How do they achieve such high standards of technical mastery? At what cost? And I don’t mean just financial – are there human casualties along the way? Where does the passion and ability to communicate through their music making come from? What happens to those who don’t make it into the top orchestras?

But of course, as anyone associated with El Sistema itself and Sistema inspired programmes around the world will tell you, it is not a music programme. It is a social programme whose objectives are achieved through musical excellence.

This short paper is no more than a brief, personal reflection on my thoughts to date[1]. As well as wanting to understand how the programme works in Venezuela, I wanted to learn more about how the programme might be adopted and adapted in other parts of the world[2].

The first thing I found was a remarkable openness and generosity in the Venezuelans. Time was not an issue. Nothing was too much trouble. Questions were answered freely. Discussions were reflective and had intellectual rigour that nonetheless never lost sight of the practical realities and the fundamental purpose of the programme: to enrich lives through music.

Of course, not everyone becomes a member of the Simón Bolívar Orchestra or a professional musician. (Though it partly depends how you
define that word). The musicians never forget their roots. Giving back to
future generations through teaching is part of what they do – no sense of ‘if you can’t play, teach’! There are equally important roles for t technicians, administrators, librarians and instrument makers. Virtually any aspect of a music related career is not only possible, it is thought about, planned and catered for. And yes, there are many who follow careers outside music too, but it is their experiences within El Sistema that enriched their lives and empowered them to move on to careers they would otherwise never even have dreamed of.

Whilst it is the orchestral programme that is probably best known worldwide, the choral programme is equally astounding and well developed with groups having won international accolades for singing too. There is also much more diversity and breadth than some people realise. I saw a rock group; there is a massive folk music programme using authentic instruments underway; as well as percussion groups; big band; jazz and Baroque to name but a few. One of the most moving moments was with young people with Special Needs and Disabilities. It was the best work that I have ever seen and included a beautifully sung Ave Maria, composed by Jose Daniel Coronado, one of the students. So yes, tick the SEND and composing boxes if you are into box ticking!

But this is definitely not about ticking boxes. It is the care for each and every individual, together with the attention to detail, that impressed me most. I repeatedly saw support for the young person, in whatever way he or she needed that support, in order to succeed at whatever was the next
challenge.  The approach was: what does this child need? How can I help? And if something didn’t work, something else was tried until a solution was found. Similarly, every aspect of the programme has been thoroughly thought through, tried and tested over the years. But that doesn’t mean it has become stagnant. It is dynamic. New ideas and repertoire are constantly considered, but subjected to rigorous evaluation, piloting, development, and quality assurance before being adopted more widely. Sometimes the help of experts elsewhere in the world is sought if the expertise is not available locally. The same level of detail was applied to the construction of the Centro de Acción Social por la Música in Caracas (Centre for Social Action through Music). Rooms are all acoustically treated and built with maximum flexibility in mind; recording and video facilities are available in all rooms and the freight lift has been designed to give access to all floors for any size of instrument.

Access versus excellence? Abreu has never subscribed to this dichotomy. He has pursued both goals with equal zeal and as Maestro Abreu himself
said: “Culture for the poor must never be poor culture.”  Not only is the programme free to all who participate, even the concerts are free in the Fundacion’s superb concert hall.

So, is El Sistema perfect? Of course not. The Venezuelans are the first to say that they continue to strive to improve still further. One day, they would wish to offer the programme to every child in Venezuela.

Can we learn from El Sistema? Are there aspects of their programme that we can adopt and adapt? Indeed, are there things we can offer in return? I believe the answers to these questions is ‘yes’! Certainly, the best of what I see in England is equal to much of what I saw in the núcleos in Venezuela. But El Sistema gives young people access to the best in a way it is hard to imagine without seeing it at first hand. I might even go as far as saying that some of the things we do in England may be better. But I came away feeling that there is an enormous amount we can learn from El Sistema: placing the welfare of the individual child at the centre; supporting musical success through carefully thought out steps; placing all of this within a nationally coherent structure, the philosophy for which is shared and owned by all engaged in the programme.

After a lifetime of making music and work in music education, I left Venezuela inspired and re-energised. There is much still to learn and some things to offer in return. But I also left with a clear belief that together, we can all make an important difference to lives of young people, their families and communities throughout the world through music.           

Part 4 – Making it happen! Making Music Together

I asserted in Part 1 that the National Plan for Music Education (NPME) gives us the best opportunity we have for improving the quality of music education for all young people in England and that it requires us all to do two things: to challenge what is happening where provision is not good enough; and to support efforts that will lead to improvement. In Part 2 I proposed that there is a place for the ‘arts in education’ and for ‘education in the arts’ and that the two are often intertwined. I argued that we must be clear about what we are doing, how we augment provision in schools, and that we must not compromise quality or reduce expectations. In Part 3 I addressed the issue of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for professional educators (class teachers), professional artists and what I referred to as professional musician/educators’.

In this last short paper I want to address briefly ‘making it happen’ and the importance making music together.

At the time of writing, the details of the curriculum review are still awaited. However, I would argue that, if we are enabling young people to learn through high quality music education, enabling them to make music together, learning to become performers, listeners and composers and to make judgements about quality, we are likely to be able to meet any requirements placed upon us.

At its most creative an educational experience can also be: a high quality experience; provide value for money; challenge, support and augment provision in schools; and provide continuing professional development. All that is required is a clear understanding of how each experience fits in to the short, medium and long term aims for young people’s music education, a professional analysis of what is needed and on-going evaluation as to whether the desired outcomes are being met.

Much of the current focus and hub funding is on the four core requirements of the National Plan[1]. In this respect we can learn much from the phenomenon that is El Sistema. Young people can make music together from the earliest stages in an ensemble. A student does not have to achieve a degree of master on his or her instrument before being able to make music with others. This is important as many of the ‘value added’ benefits of music education come from making music with others in meaningful and worthwhile ensembles. Young people and adults work together helping each other. Making music regularly, with frequent performances, motivates and inspires young people. Progress is rapid – as long as the appropriate expectations, expertise and support are also in place. As Ofsted pointed out:[2]

“Pupils enjoy their musical experiences and make good progress as a result of high expectations for all – every child can make, and benefit from, music. Enjoyment and success starts from the earliest stages of musical learning. Singing is confident, and attention is given to correct posture and increasing control of intonation, expression, and diction. Instrumental techniques are accurate and secure; there is no need for beginners to be out of tune.”

It is no accident that the National Plan refers to Whole Class Ensemble Tuition instead of Whole Class Instrumental Tuition. The intention is that young people learn in a realistic musical environment. If the whole class is approached as an ensemble, with smaller group ‘sectional’ rehearsals, all aimed at supporting a musical experience that has integrity,
the outcome is more musical, relevant and valuable. With differentiated
material and creatively constructed timetables, individual needs can also be met, whether for remedial purposes or for stretching the talented student. Young people learn music through playing an instrument and singing together with others: listening, performing, composing, improvising and evaluating. Regular input from a professional ‘musician/educator’ with both musical and educational expertise ‘augments’ and ‘supports’ the work that is the school’s responsibility.

Most effective practice involves class teachers learning alongside children, back up sessions during the week, led by class teachers
and/or students and regular performances to each other, the school and the local community. The experience also acts as valuable CPD for the class teacher as well as for the ‘musician/educator’. There is coherence between in and out of school provision, between input by class teachers, musician/educators, and professional musicians.

Again, Ofsted reported of the Sistema inspired ‘In Harmony’ programme[3] in Liverpool:

The quality of music teaching enjoyed by pupils in group lessons is outstanding. The consistency of approach, founded on strong principles that draw on a range of pedagogical and musical approaches, is commendable. Every opportunity is taken to immerse pupils in musical language, and not a minute is wasted. The ‘In Harmony’ teachers are excellent musicians and their expert modelling sets the standard for the technical and musical quality that pupils are expected to match. At the same time, tasks are sequenced thoughtfully and musically so that pupils are able to master new ideas in small steps. Pupils of all ages contribute creatively by suggesting ways to improve their work and by inventing new melodic and rhythmic patterns to perform[4].

Next week I am off to see El Sistema in action together with representatives from Sistema inspired projects in England[5] so I hope to learn more about what we can adopt and adapt to an English context. Watch this space for further thoughts.

These four short papers have only scratched the surface of the massively complex issue of what is high quality music education to which we all aspire. The main purpose has been to raise questions, challenge some accepted norms and to argue for responsibility, accountability and for high quality. My experience to date has led me to the conclusion that there can be confusion over the arts in education and education in the arts. Both are valid and both are necessary for education, society and for the economy. But they are not the same.

Over time (by 2020?) a high quality music education could be available for all young people. Whether we achieve this will be determined by the decisions each and every one of us takes now.