I am not sure that what I write wholly addresses the question above, but it might add to the emerging debate about a thinking curriculum.

I have recently written a unit of work on the fusion (and very accessible) Afrobeat style of the Nigerian political activist and musician Fela Kuti (available in my resources or from the National Theatre website). The unit is interdisciplinary combining music and history. Importantly the unit adopts a humanities convention of posing a number of key questions which are then explored and answered. In short it is inquiry based, the key questions being:
'How have black people protested through music in the USA, Jamaica & South America?'
'Why did Fela Kuti write protest music?'
'How African is Fela Kuti's music?'
'Does Fela Kuti deserve to be remembered as an African Hero?'

The musical activities involve a musical futures type of approach to creating a stylistic 'endless groove', the composition of a Afrobeat song using a composers notebook approach, a rainbow active speaking and listening strategy to help students identify the key characteristics of the style and a card sort that scaffolds pupils attempts at, and develops their thinking skills in order to make sophisticated stylistic connections and answer the key questions.

Working with a historian opened my eyes to the inquiry approach which, in my opinion enriches the learning (particularly the contextual elements), challenges students thinking and provides (I hope!) a really rich and meaningful hands on practical exploration of the Afrobeat style. If the outcomes of the teaching of this unit were that students were able to connect with (and perhaps enjoy, want to move to, or be moved by) the music through their practical exploration, were challenged by its political context and were able to make connections with the stylistic roots of Afrobeat, then this would have been a rich learning experience on many levels - academic, artistic and cultural. We should celebrate and promote the fact that our subject impacts on so many levels.

A traditional subject discipline? - yes. Should music and the arts be recognized as part of a broad and balanced curriculum along with the humanities - YES (and when appropriate in partnership with!). A thinking curriculum - definitely.

Why do we talk of academic subjects?

These are the percentages needed to get an A* last June in the AQA suite of subjects

Maths 79% Music 80%, Drama 83% Art 96% ,Dance 92%Geog 72%, History73%

Let's start talking in these terms

I agree with Sarah.

There’s something about “we need to move from a doing curriculum to a thinking curriculum, and to challenge young people to extend their thinking, go beyond their comfort zones, much more than we do at present ” that feels like you are valourising the way we can verbalise our musical experiences and illustrate abstract/logical thinking rather than valuing the musical thinking/feeling that goes on in music making.

It seems to me that we need to celebrate musics ability to connect with and transform the way young people can feel about themselves and their relationships to others. The ability to analyse and discuss music whilst useful doesn’t in my view imply you are more musical or intellectual. Emphasising musics importance as an academic subject only seems to continue to strengthen the misconceived notion that certain forms of intelligence are more important than others.
I think we need to find ways of articulating the way the arts can impact on young people in powerful and transformative way because it connects with how we feel/live/think. Abstract logical thinking is not necessarily the most important thing that our students need to develop.

I’m also interested in the following statement: “And yes, bring them into closer contact with complex extended pieces by brilliant composers (jazz, classical, avant-garde, Indian, whatever).”

Why is musical complexity so important? Who says that complex music is more enriching and satisfying than less complex music? What is it that makes the pieces more complex – the fact that they are extended? Or is it they are written by brilliant composers. What about musical traditions that develop music in more communal ways? Why are long pieces more intellectually challenging than short ones? Why do I need to be challenged by music? What if I just find it fun – is this not really musical enough?

Who decides this musical/intellectual hierarchy? Are we looking to harmonic complexity, or structural complexity and if so why? Who decides that these particular composers are brilliant, brilliant within their own musical traditions? Or just brilliant full stop?

There something about the list: jazz, classical, avant-garde Indian that seems to deliberately suggest that young people’s enjoyment of popular music is not good enough ground for finding complexity and brilliance. (What is Indian music? And if there is Indian music, what is English music or Welsh music or French music?)

Personally, when it comes to thinking about music – I think I’m less interested in trying to get young people to see how they have simple, mistaken taste - but I think they could begin to think about for example how and why it is certain cultural products gain prestige and importance over others and what this says about certain social groups power to accredit complexity and value.

Sorry about the rambling nature of this.

It won’t come as a surprise that I can’t agree with Robert’s vision of a creative silence. Occasionally we have three classes timetabled at the same time. I just can’t see that walking around my music department and seeing everyone discussing music (lets say they are making connections/maybe even using Blooms Taxonomy/six hats) something that would bring me more pleasure than seeing everyone making musical connections.

In reply to Sarah's very valuable comments:- as I wrote, "these lessons worked because the kids also had plenty of hands-on experience". A thinking curriculum is a doing curriculum as well. But a doing curriculum can miss out on being a thinking curriculum! I encourage people interested in this thread to read the two papers on my resources page, I'd be very interested in your thoughts on them. They describe lessons I have taught or seen taught. They all worked well yet I think you'll find they are well outside common practice. Do they have something new to offer?

Hi Robert,

Can we not challenge people to extend their thinking through practical exploration? Certainly a balanced curriculum is essential but to my mind (limited tho it is!!!) I would rather see learners using performing, composing and analytical skills alongside their gained 'academic' knowledge...

I endeavor to take kids out of their comfort zones, and I know that lots of my students have been inspired by an enormous range of music and musicians such as you describe. But they have normally been inspired to look further into particular areas as a direct result of practical activity in lessons. Visitors to the department frequently comment upon the range of music and also at the range of different students who come and use the department in an average day.

I think a doing curriculum IS a thinking curriculum!

In some of the most stimulating lessons I've been parts of, nobody touched an instrument! The quality of listening, thinking, and creativity was way beyond what a group composition session usually provides. In case anyone's interested, I'll put a couple of papers up on my page with some examples of non-practical lessons. But of course I'm not proposing a totally non-practical curriculum - these lessons worked because the kids also had plenty of hands-on experience. What I am saying is that we need to move from a doing curriculum to a thinking curriculum, and to challenge young people to extend their thinking, go beyond their comfort zones, much more than we do at present. And yes, bring them into closer contact with complex extended pieces by brilliant composers (jazz, classical, avant-garde, Indian, whatever). If becoming a Humanities subject encourages this, then it may be a positive move.

As Vanessa says below, this may well be disappointing news for music teachers. But I think the White Paper as a whole is very disappointing news for young people and for any hope of a revolution in education.
Vanessa mentions Ken Robinson's book -'Out of our Minds' - and I would go further to suggest Guy Claxton's 'What's the Point of School' and would also urge everyone to see Ken Robinson's recent talk on YouTube - At the RSA.

The Curriculum section in the white paper makes it clear that maths, science and language are all at the top and the arts exist somewhere near the bottom as far as perceived importance is concerned - and now music is possibly to be consumed into a general 'cultural box'. Are we really surprised? Is this not simply a further entrenching of the hierarchy that has existed since organised state education began (and now dangerously outdated)? I know we have had great encouragement and support in recent years in the shape of the Music Manifesto, Wider Opportunities, Sing Up, Musical Futures etc. and all these have gone some way to raising the status of music. However, the hierarchy of subjects still remains the same. And with this hierarchy comes the hidden curriculum that teaches young people that some ‘subjects’ are more important than others - regardless of what is important to them. Are English, maths and science so difficult that these subjects need about 3 or 4 times more curriculum time as other subjects to achieve the same 2 NC Level rise as expected in secondary schools? And at GCSE - the percentage of pupils getting 5 A*-C is often reduced when English and maths results are included - so what have all those additional hours for numeracy and literacy achieved? I know there is the argument that everyone has to take English and maths at GCSE regardless of ability or interest so this brings some results down. But this is precisely my point. Why does a young person have to pursue certain subjects for a disproportionate amount of time if they have little aptitude or interest? Of course English and maths are important but so is music, dance, drama, visual arts and all the other things that interest young people. Of course we would all like young people to be able to get a job and/or go on to higher education (I'm sure young people would like this as an option too) - and, perhaps, to invent new jobs just in case there aren't enough old ones to go round! But what does it take to get a job or invent one? - how will young people know where their interests and strengths lie unless they have had as broad an opportunity as possible to make more informed decisions? Why is it thought that if a great deal more time is spent on numeracy and literacy than on other areas of development, young people will be at an advantage - for what? What use are a disproportionate number of science lessons to someone who really wants to dance (but dance is not available because of a disproportionate number of science lessons). How many young people would rather be painting a picture than having that 'extra' session of maths?
Let the curriculum be divided more evenly with all subjects having an equal status and, as young people develop particular directions and interests, let the curriculum support this as well.

My answers to the key questions above -
1. Music is both a discipline and a cultural enrichment of the curriculum. It should exist in its own right and also as a path to support creative thinking, problem solving, team work, self esteem, personal opinions etc.
2. Music and the arts should be recognised. (Full stop!) Relations between the arts and all other areas of the curriculum are rich and should be explored more fully.
3. If headteachers don’t provide sufficient opportunities for music (and the arts in general) then they will be doing their pupils a crucial educational disservice.

If the White Paper had addressed some of the above issues, there would be cause for celebration. But all I can see is a worrying reaffirmation of an outdated system. Check out Ken Robinson and you will know what I mean

There is an interesting debate on whether music is an Arts or Humanities subject on the Initial Teacher Education Subject Resource Network www.music-ite.org.uk. Back in September, Tim Cain was posing this question, with responses from David Ashworth and most recently - following the publication of the White Paper - from John Finney.

It's probably a given that this is very disappointing news for us as music teachers. I still feel very strongly that music should indeed be part of this new English Baccalaureate as I cannot see how it can be broad and balanced without Arts of any kind. We do, however, have to work together now to secure support for music in whatever position it takes within the curriculum. If headteachers don't feel able to provide opportunities for music then maybe they are just the people NAME (and other music educators) should be targetting now to offer support through local networks / conferences / CPD opportunities. We need to keep music within their focus and not let it slip from their vision. If you have not read Ken Robinson's book - Out of our Minds you really should. His view of the subject heirarchy is spot on here. He puts a very strong case for the inclusion of Arts and the need for them to be seen as a legitimate subject sitting equally alongside the sciences and humanities.

Wow – two forum discussions on the White Paper at once! In case you are spoilt for choice re which to go for, it’s worth noting they spotlight different areas of concern, so it’s probably worth responding to either – or both…

Great to see NAME instigating discussions on this site – let’s hope this is the first of many and that NAME members feel they can get involved.

Reading the Key Questions posed above got me thinking back to Tim Cain’s excellent recent blog on music-ite.org.uk where back in September he had the foresight to reflect on some of this discussion as to where we might place music in the arts/humanities spectrum. I’ll quote from his article:

“If we see music as an arts subject we can expect it to involve making music. Activities will involve singing, playing instruments, composing, improvising. It will be noisy. Music will be seen as developing the imagination; creativity will be important. Listening to music will be heavily subjective, involving personal response. When we see music as an art subject, we expect to form some sort of relationship with the music; we expect it to ‘say’ something to us.

If we see music as a humanities subject we might expect it to look more like other academic subjects, such as History. Making and doing might not feature very much. Instead, we will expect the curriculum to centre around musical works by other people, who have lived in different times and places.”

What goes around comes around? Probably as well that John Paynter isn’t around to see what might be happening….