Key issues and challenges

The quality and reach of schools-based music education is still unacceptably variable and inconsistent – at both primary and secondary – despite the focused interventions of the last decade and considerable levels of government and charitable investment.

There is still too little music-making in many classroom music lessons reported at both primary and secondary levels¹ Reasons for this vary  according to context, but are concentrated around;

1. lack of teacher confidence,
2. poor spaces and / or resources,
3. teaching strategies over-weighted to verbal and written analysis.

Pupils’ own musical interests, skills and aspirations are still not sufficiently taken into account in planning and delivery of classroom-based learning, and given the degree of non-school engagement pupils are likely to have with music this is a significant missed opportunity. Music technology is not yet sufficiently integrated into school-based music, and many teachers do not capitalise on pupils’ confidence and facility with technology.

The power of music as a force for good in the lives of children, their families and the cultures of schools is not yet widely understood nor consistently realised at the school level. Whilst music remains firmly placed as a statutory entitlement for nine years of a child’s life, there is ongoing² evidence that it is not consistently delivered as such. The over-arching message of concern coming through the interviews and the literature is that the gap between the best and the worst music in schools is getting wider rather than narrower.

“What I’m seeing is an increasingly exaggerated version of what we’ve been looking at for quite a long time now, which is a sort of polarisation of some schools where there is seemingly a lot going on and other schools where there is nothing going or almost nothing going on.”

“The key message is that the gap between best and worst provision has widened. There are schools that do a terrific job and there are more where sadly that’s very far from the
case.”

“It’s very variable – as it ever was, despite national curriculum being mandatory – depending on provision , confidence, competence of Head Teacher and commitment from Governors…but variability appears to be more acute than at any time in the past.”

There is a clear sense that NPME and the establishment of Music Hubs have not – yet, at any rate – made significant headway in equalising the education postcode lottery, and
there is disappointment with the current perceived disjunction between policy and practice from many colleagues.

“Policy statements are positive and supportive but the structural changes that are happening now are generating unintended  consequences and having unforeseen impact. Future proofing is not happening –  there is a mismatch what was thought and what is actually happening on ground…. there’s fragmentation, not enough in place to incentivise music teaching and not enough incentives to counter the disincentives”

“Policy intent and rhetoric around music education and cultural education is not supported structurally by curriculum frameworks and qualifications and especially not now by new performance measures for schools. So the centre is saying one thing but doing the other.”

There was a striking unanimity across interviewees, literature and survey data in identifying six interlinked key issues underlying the variable – and in some cases very poor – quality and reach of music education in schools. These are here explored in turn.

1. Low teacher confidence stemming from insufficient depth of ITE and lack of engagement with post-qualification CPD and professional networks

Only 8% of primary teachers in the online survey reported feeling confident about teaching music, 16% were engaged in a professional network for music and 15% had regular opportunities for professional
development. Only 32% of secondary teachers were engaged in a professional network or had regular opportunities to participate in professional development[32. IoE online survey analysis, appendix III].

This finding is not new, and successive Ofsted reports have pointed to the correlation between lack of CPD and professional networking and poor classroom practice. It is frustrating in its ubiquity, however, and interviewees were consistent – and in some cases vehement – in their analysis. Changes in teacher education leading to most or all of the student/beginning teacher experience being school-based are having a potentially detrimental impact on quality of music teaching, as students/beginning teachers (and NQTs) are not experiencing a sufficient range of high quality teaching role models, nor pedagogical approaches. This in turn may be contributing to low retention of music NQTs in teaching. The lack of time for music in primary initial teacher education was a serious concern for all interviewees, and there was also agreement that the position of secondary
music PGCE training is under threat as a consequence of recent changes in education policy and arrangements for school-based  ITE:

“ITE needs to be more in depth and include more time on music to develop confidence and technique relevant to individual teacher”

“Numbers of ITE students dipped at the point E.Bacc was being discussed and we have trouble recruiting to fill places… Message is given that music is not important as a subject.”

There is a crisis of continuing professional development at all levels, with many teachers not engaging in regular CPD, networks, professional conversations about music, nor even keeping up their own musical skills and practice. Primary teacher confidence about teaching/supporting music continues to be a major concern, and engagement in CPD,networks and professional conversations about music is low. Secondary music teachers are still too often isolated, and the range and quality of provision are generally lower across the board than they should be, given that this is a specialist workforce. In addition, we are failing as a sector to draw on the extraordinary research resources of our Higher Education colleagues in a systematic and structured way to support teacher development, pedagogy and curriculum³.

“Practice has gotten much worse. No support now, no music advisor, lack of regular inset and music CPD…it (CPD) is now often generic, dealing with whole school issues, internally focussed, Tougher for teachers to access CPD, therefore lack of breadth of CPD offer as demand isn’t there”

2. Weaknesses in curriculum and pedagogy

There was a general view – again born out in the literature⁴ – that there are consistent weaknesses in curriculum and pedagogy across the country. These may relate to inadequate training and CPD, lack of support, insufficient access to information and new ideas:

“I am worrying about next generation of teachers….I tell them to….read John Paynter’s Sound and Silence because I keep meeting classroom teachers that haven’t read it….the rot set in with keyboards and in terms of creativity it has just gone downhill since then. I never see any wild creative music – it all seems so buttoned down and just joining the dots. It seems that in this authority gone are music departments with practice rooms with kids in them making noise – now they keep them all in the same room with computers – I see very little live interactive or creative group work going on any more.”

“…sometimes what I see is very performance driven, not seeing so much creative work – a lot to do with the fact that the people that are coming in to do the teaching in schools may not be qualified teachers, may have traditional view of what music teaching is – focused on acquiring skills to perform, and the schools don’t put them under pressure to work in any other way.”

“There is a sometimes a false correlation between vibrant community activities and good quality music making – good extracurricular music doesn’t always connect to good  classroom teaching – high profile music activity in school productions, orchestras, jazz bands etc. can mask weaker provision in classroom lessons. The reverse is much rarer.”

There is a widely shared concern that music pedagogy in schools is narrowing – that teachers teach the way they were taught or are unduly formed by the way the department they enter is structured, and that the lack of consistent engagement in professional networks and CPD means that teachers are less inclined to challenge and innovate in their practice if that isn’t valued in the culture of their school or department. At secondary level this can generate a ‘narrow-specialist’ culture, in which the range of musical opportunities is confined to those areas that the individual teacher(s) feel confident in, and the pedagogical approach doesn’t flex. If the department is outward facing and engaged in positive partnerships this can work very well, with the teacher acting as guide or broker to ensure a breadth of experiences. This partnership based approach is not yet the norm however.

“You need a very clear philosophy of what is good music teaching. School based training doesn’t give a wide enough view of what’s going on, alternative practices etc. They end up copying the practice of people they are working with.”

“Young teachers coming to the classroom from training are for the most part full of enthusiasm, life and ideas and they have clear philosophies of inclusion and diversity. The pedagogy is less clear and it becomes very difficult to sustain within the school environments they find themselves in…the negative impact of assessment requirements…being asked to show progression every 20 minutes can be difficult in music….”

“One person can’t deliver everything. In each school there needs to be a Music Leader who coordinates the resources and makes sure that they are distributed equitably. The Music Leader must know about the quality and content of what’s needed and must work with the outside agents to build partnerships for that delivery. We got quite close to this but now we seem to be moving away because of funding. We need to work on this – when head teachers see the value of this approach and its impact they will support and find funding.”

There is often a lack of innovation and reflective practice visible in the approach of music coordinators and Heads of Music to interpreting the National Curriculum – the flexibility and choice available are either not understood as such, or are too broad for non-specialists (primary) or narrow-specialists (secondary) to make sense of. Both non and narrow-specialist teachers continue to struggle with making effective choices about curriculum and pedagogy, and fail to make the connections between classroom activities and music outside the classroom in mapping entitlement.

“Some Heads of music are not really making any changes for the new curriculum – many are just bringing old schemes of work into the new framework because there is no guidance….and the same with assessment levels. This could be a missed opportunity to create something innovative….”

“…People are confused. Music theatre shows, bands, choirs – these are powerful experiences – then why not have them be where we deliver the National Curriculum?”

There was a concern that the sector lacks a consistent philosophy and understanding of the purpose of music education, which in turn leads to a lack of clarity for teachers and senior leaders about the role, value and position of music in school, and about curriculum and pedagogical choices.

“As a community we have some responsibility for this ourselves. I’ve never felt that we’ve very clearly articulated a message about what the intrinsic benefits of music are – we’ve been very good at the extrinsic advocacy and the kind of neo-liberal compliance agenda; we’ve been much less good at expressing the musical perspective in respect of purpose, defining place and position in the world and ways of understanding.”

“There are different philosophies of music education at play….for example some might say that inclusion, participation and diversity are the pedagogy by which community musicians do their work; others might say that is just ‘good teaching’ and it be just qualitatively rather than fundamentally different. All sorts of things accrue from those viewpoints, which are to do with the acculturation and cultural component of the arts in general, but in this case music….”

“There is a fundamental problem of music in schools – which is that they try to treat it as a school (academic) rather than a life subject.”

There is also more progress to be made on inclusion and diversity although practice has certainly improved over the last decade, as noted earlier in this report. There was a general consensus that poverty and challenging circumstances continue to undermine young people’s chances in music – as it still does their wider education.

Music is widely understood to have enormous untapped potential as a tool for empowering young people to develop efficacy, confidence and creative authority[35. Hallam, S. (2010) ‘The power of music: its impact of the intellectual, personal and social development of children and young people’, International Journal of Music Education, Hallam, S. & Creech, A. (Eds) (2010) ‘Music Education in the 21st Century in the United Kingdom: Achievements, analysis and aspirations’. London]. The body of by organisations and individuals in the community, voluntary and arts sectors focused on music as a site for social and personal development of vulnerable young people is extremely valuable⁵ and yet under-used in the planning and delivery of schools-based music. This is perhaps a subset of the all-pervasive observation that the growing  ody of practicebased research in music education and engagement seems to be largely unreferenced and under-utilised by teachers and other practitioners. This is frustrating, as many of the weaknesses in curriculum and pedagogy identified not only in this review but also in successive Ofsted reports might be in part addressed by application of insights from this dynamic and fast-evolving body of knowledge.

“…it’s great where this kind of (social) inclusion work is not considered on the edge – just what a Hub does and there are resources dedicated to it. Where Hubs are working well you can see that… In practical terms what that means is we see can see an out of school initiative that is succeeding in engaging young people in challenging circumstances, and then there is cross-referral and people making the most of that. It comes down to the basics of working with schools and their communities in a very detailed  way understanding what the need is.”

“Music is important for all children but essential for SEN children – unfortunately this is still often overlooked. The value lies in the role music plays in early childhood development as it precedes language acquisition – many children with SEN are still at this early stage (e.g. establishing language patterns etc). However often SEN schools focus on literacy and numeracy and overlook music – but music should be a mandatory core element in SEN delivery”

“The important question for me is what  kind of inclusion is this. It seems to me to be reasonably healthy in terms of children’s contact with the objects of different cultures. The extent to which they get to work through the practices of those cultures is much more variable…if you are learning a pop song from notation are you really engaging with popular music? There are challenges about authenticity… music isn’t just the sound it makes; it’s about the practices. There’s no point in musical tourism – it doesn’t produce depth of development and I’m not sure we’ve quite grasped that.”

There is also much more to be done on including and respecting young peoples’ voices in their own musical learning, although Musical Futures is widely acknowledged as a good example of a pedagogical approach to this. Notwithstanding that, young people consulted as part of this review⁶ reported that they and their peers often perceive their musical experiences in schools as disconnected from their musical passions, and had clear, sophisticated views on what was needed to improve their experience of music in schools:

• More external visits and access to more musical influences to help broaden horizons and really understand what music can be, this is especially important where there is limited access to music through family and community background
• The music curriculum should be based on continual feedback between students and teachers and should include opportunities to steer the direction of the programme of study through ongoing active pupil voice
• Earlier opportunities to learn notation and instrumental teaching and exposure to a range of genres.
• Link older pupils with younger ones as musical buddies to learn together to create an accepted musical community in schools.
• Authentic and credible teachers who shouldn’t pretend to know everything  or try to communicate with students on their level by acting ‘cool’ and trying to assume the young people’s culture. They should be honest and acknowledge that they don’t know everything but that they will try and incorporate young people’s interests and facilitate a musical learning journey that they all go on together.

It is worth noting that these perspectives align well with the NPME.

Weaknesses in curriculum and pedagogy need to be addressed within and by the sector through dynamic reflection, the use of evidence, peer-networking, training and support for innovation. This is a professional community, made up in the main of highly committed individuals who want to facilitate excellent outcomes for children and young people. A better integrated open system of well-structured CPD, engagement with research and evidence and dynamic peer networking would transform weaknesses into strengths and create a powerful platform for innovation.

3. Retention and progression in music

Retention and progression in music continue to be poorly understood and imperfectly tracked. Schools, teachers and music leaders are often unclear on how to consider retention and progression; with a range of flawed measures, inappropriate assessment strategies and unhelpful targets being deployed. Challenges in understanding retention and progression connect to questions of pedagogy, teacher experience, and understanding of pupils’ wider music lives as well to the structure of the National Curriculum. There is often a lack of effective connection between music within the classroom and music beyond the classroom. This means that young peoples’ engagement and progression are not always fully recognised, nor well-supported. “Most teachers do the very best that they can, where system works and the young person meets teacher’s profile of what a musician looks like but what about the other students who aren’t bringing their musical experiences into school or are missed through school system – we need to keep teachers’ profile of a ‘musician’ fresh.”

It is difficult to draw conclusions about individual progression from, e.g. WCIVT at KS2 into continuing instrumental or vocal study, as schools and Music Hubs don’t hold enough data on what young people may be doing outside of their fields of reference. Having said that, only 10% of Year 7 pupils were recorded as learning an instrument in England in 2012⁷, which is disappointingly low, given that all those pupils should have  had six years of music in the classroom and at least one year of instrumental learning through WCIVT. Economic factors are widely cited as central to the problem, although increasingly Hubs are implementing carefully targeted strategies to minimise the impact of poverty on progression as best they can. Many Hubs are also working hard on sustaining excellent ensemble provision despite resource challenges, seeing that as an important means of enabling young people to develop in music.

“…progression is very difficult and fragmented….I did used to think it was linear and continuous but I have completely changed my view….there are all sorts of social, economic and psychological barriers to instrumental progression….human progression rather than skills progression as a measure would be really useful.”

“I still think it is socio-economic class based – there is a hierarchy which needs to abolished….The School Proms are a good model – if you compare the Schools Proms  programmes there is an enormous acceptance and integration and inclusion of a range of musics. Young people need to know that their music is equally valued.”

Inadequate transition management39, with secondary schools either not being provided with or not taking on information about pupils’ musical experience and abilities, is undoubtedly also a factor in what appear to be poor progression rates, and in some areas there is also insufficient access to an appropriate range and quality of instrumental tuition matched to pupils’ interests.

“The logjam is the movement from primary to secondary – mismatch of structure and content…there is good practice around that has been established over many years but it is not widespread….we must set the expectation that all children will have good experiences and be supported to  make progress….”

Assessment of music remains a contested area, and Music Mark is about to lead a piece of work to produce guidance on appropriate strategies.

“Are children learning musically and do they know how to assess their own musical progress? Very often the levels and sub-levels are misused by teachers and hold the learning back and don’t lead to pupils’ understanding.”

“Too often we are not thinking about developing musicians – we are thinking about tasks rather than the development of musicianship – so no progression in anything. It becomes touristic collection.”

More widespread integration of digital technologies – and particularly the use of mobile devices – could help to make better connections between in and out of school musical experiences, and make a contribution to development of meaningful assessment and progression tracking.

“Strengthen in school and out of school music making using technology strategically – it is now practical, realistic and achievable. It could work now – just needs stronger partnerships with Music Hub – equal partnerships between teachers and Hub staff. Both need to take a role in this. Young people are interested in music and we haven’t exploited this intrinsic interest. We need to join up in and out of school music making through the use of technology.”

Clear, comprehensive guidelines and definitions to help frame planning for progression and retention are badly needed. From this greater clarity it should then be possible to put in place appropriate tracking measures to understand what is working and what is not, which could then feed practice at local and national levels.

4. Insufficient support from Senior Leadership teams

School senior leadership teams often don’t see the arguments for investing in music or prioritising it in the face of other curriculum and budget pressures. In addition, where key senior staff are not confident about judging the quality of musical learning and teaching they are not able to provide appropriate support to music teachers / external partners in terms of quality, CPD and progression for pupils⁸ Interviewees and the literature were in agreement that the attitude of senior leadership – particularly Heads but also other senior teachers and Governing Bodies – was critical in determining the degree  to which music was high quality, inclusive and impacted on the culture of the whole school.

“What are those schools with great, inclusive, high-quality music doing that the others are not doing? I think it is the support within the whole ethos from top downwards supporting the leadership and imagination of the musicians (teachers and students) within the schools”

“The Head is crucial…if the Head values music you see space, time and investment; programme and activity developed in keeping with what best for school, practice rooms, instruments, activity happening in classroom time, lunch breaks, after school community offer. In schools where Heads don’t value it, it just happens at bare minimum under the radar and is not strategically hooked into life of the school.”

“Head Teachers often have positive attitudes, but are misunderstanding and underestimating how significant it could be if music was working really well in their schools. They don’t know what good music education looks like so can’t challenge their staff….”

There is understanding of the pressures Heads and Governing Bodies are dealing with in respect of narrowing the attainment gap, managing complex accountability and financial frameworks and dealing with structural and policy changes. However, it is clear that there is important work to be done to help school senior leaders to understand how music can help with those pressures – so music becomes part of the solution.

“Head teachers and governing bodies are sometimes not brave enough to see how music could transform their schools….they often go straight for literacy and numeracy and neglect music. But what about school improvement from a music point of view? Music helps with listening skills, focusing, learning, team work….people still fear using music as their main tool for school improvement but they shouldn’t.”

“…This sort of relentless focus on performativity, league tables, testing, literacy, numeracy – the curriculum is overloaded; although on the face of it schools are begin given a choice, there is no choice because you have to achieve particular targets or you are punished. Whether people are doing quite well or not they feel under the cosh. To stick your head over the parapet and say that to do really well we could foreground music and the arts is courageous and needs particular individuals who have the background and the values – and then it works.”

This sense of music not being well understood by senior leadership teams and governing bodies as a powerful asset in their overall school improvement missions relates to the observations about insecure place and status of music in schools, despite the  statutory entitlement. Addressing this core misalignment of policy and practice would have a profound impact on the capacity of teachers, Hubs and the wider music education sector to improve the quality, range and reach of schools-based music.

5. Insufficient local and national  support structures

The National Plan for Music Education does not yet appear to be widely embedded in local level planning. Notwithstanding some inspiring examples of excellence in leadership, partnership and provision, many Music Hubs are not yet fulfilling their remit to bring together music provision across a range of local partners to meet identified needs.

“…it’s just recycling the old funding. Where’s the needs analysis? Where’s the focus on quality of teaching and learning? Where’s the consistency?”

In many parts of the country there is a reported lack of expert advisory support for schools and teachers in developing strong music plans and improving quality of provision for their pupils, and the lack of deep seated partnership and dialogue between Music Hubs. The generally acknowledged variable quality of school-based provision is associated for many people with a lack of expert advice and support.

“…terrible inconsistency in teaching and leadership –same picture as ever – we need peer to peer support and buddying – Hubs could cluster schools together but  in many places it just seems as if schools have no advisors, no supporters to help with music….”

“Definitely see lack of advisory role. Noone’s there to do it. Who is supporting the teachers to develop the content that meets curriculum goals with rich and full engagement….Hubs should provide that pool of expertise to help schools – ultimately schools are responsible for music at KS 1-3, but the Hub should be driving change, partnership and challenge.”

“The Hubs ought to be convening sharing and expertise in communities of practice….reflecting and networking…. meeting with other organisations to share their practice with each other in side by side relationships. What often then gets discussed is quality – and it really matters that what we do is excellent practice.”

The recent Ofsted report⁹ was seen by some contributors as a useful challenge with one interviewee describing it as “a wake-up call and a shake-up”, and others seeing it differently.

“Ofsted report shameful – criticising hubs and schools for not working together when that wasn’t their plan. Maybe hubs is a 20 year down the line solution as curriculum advice centres but at the moment they don’t all employ the right people to do that work nor do the have they the capacity or the financial resource.”

There is however a general sense that the best Hubs are more proactive about helping to broker partnerships and working schools as stakeholders.

“We are looking for a much closer relationship between out of schools and in school activity – a much closer relationship for the young person. Teachers in schools could have much closer relationships in delivery terms with partner organisations.”

“Where collaboration is working well there is leadership in that Hub with a confident definition of music education….working across genres, in and out of schools and with a clear sense of what the Hub partners are there to achieve. Where it’s like that there seems to be really good progress”

The urgent need for improved local support structures for schools has been recognised by Arts Council and Ofsted. It is to be hoped that the good practice that some Hubs have pioneered will be used to inspire and benchmark progress on this front in other localities.

The national music education sector continues be perceived as fragmented, leading to a lack of consensus and leadership around professional standards in relation to curricula, pedagogy and professional development. This in turn has an increasingly negative effect on professional practice and, therefore, on children and young people’s experiences. The membership associations – Music Mark, ISM, MEC, Musicians Union, Sound Sense¹⁰ – are not perceived to be well aligned. This leads to a vacuum where a strong subject association should be, which in turn contributes to the increasing isolation of music teachers.

“…I hear no leadership voice at the moment….I hear platitudes about we must all work together – so what’s new? What does that mean now? What are all the organisations doing?”

“We need a real curriculum development organisation which we’ve lost – the notion that somebody’s leading on content and subject has gone.”

“About five years ago there was more sharing (across organisational and sector boundaries) and now there is less sharing – the lack of leadership from the national organisations is really depressing…also there is less money so people are starting feel a bit protectionist again whereas in the old days we knew where we were and knew we were valued….”

More unified and music-focused national leadership for music education would have many benefits. The diversity of perspectives, pedagogies and contexts that make up the music eco-system undoubtedly contribute to the richness and strength that characterises the best provision. However, the lack of practitioner engagement with a shared organisational forum for the development of the subject in all its  omplexity leads to fragmentation and isolation, which as we have seen earlier, in turn impacts on quality, as well as on the place and status of music.

6. Impact of recent education policy changes

The impact of shifts in education policy and funding frameworks is strongly felt – recent changes do seem to have had the general effect of lowering the status of the arts in schools, with numbers progressing to GCSE in music amongst the lowest of the arts subjects at 7% last year¹¹. Many contributors ascribe the issues of senior leadership support and patchy provision directly to changes in education policy.

“There is an obvious danger at the moment which is that music’s perceived status in relation to education policy in general is vulnerable, particularly around the E.Bacc, which is a threat at KS4 and beyond, and that is also beginning to have an impact at KS3…there is a lot of anecdotal evidence at the moment of music being reduced in the curriculum at KS3…in some places students are getting music once a year for a term or a half a term, but not with consistency – it becomes almost impossible to get any progression going or any idea of developing musical understanding and learning within KS3 and KS4”

“…in the period when funding was at its height there was a real resurgence of music….we saw the importance and effectiveness of WCIVT and that really brought home the importance of reestablishing a lot of music at KS2. Since that point although the funding has decreased, some schools have really held onto to it and are committed to sustaining it. The problem now is that it is really difficult to do that. Ofsted targets and progress measures can lead to music really being squeezed… it is increasingly difficult to get students out of classes at KS3, and for some schools the lunch hour is so short there is not time for extra-curricular activity. It is getting worse and some schools are cutting down the KS3 to a carousel so they are not even getting the full quota of music input.”

School assessment strategies and timetabling protocols at secondary level (and to some extent primary) are constraining good practice – and may even be breeding bad practice – when applied without variation
to music¹² The de-regulation of education more broadly, with academies and free schools effectively released from the national curriculum and more and more disconnected from networks associated with local authorities, including Music Hubs, means that the very notion of the entitlement itself is challenged – albeit perhaps unintentionally.

“The school landscape is changing rapidly with new trends emerging as a result of policy (e.g. introduction of academies and free schools and loss of LA support services). Policy intent and rhetoric around music education  and cultural education is not supported structurally by curriculum frameworks and qualifications and especially not now by new performance measures for schools. So centre saying one thing but doing the other.”

“Music is only secure if it is part of the statutory provision through the school’s full provision including the National Curriculum. That gives it status, parity, funding and staffing. It is a distinctive mode of learning because it is: ephemeral; abstract and simultaneously complex. That is why it is part of a balanced education – and not additional. It is also a very significant employer and exporter.”

Whilst all contributors to this review welcomed the financial investment of successive governments, there is a view that more resources are needed to realise the potential music has in the lives of children and young people. Over half of the respondents in the online survey felt that they did not have sufficient resources to deliver consistently high quality music experiences, and this finding was born out in the parallel York Consulting Musical Futures research survey[45. York Consulting, ‘The Impact of Musical Bridges on Primary to Secondary School Transition: Hub Survey’].

“There is not a full understanding of what is the real cost of providing good quality music education. This needs to be understood in more depth by decision makers at a school level and policy
level.”

Many of those interviewed were of the view that funding was not the prime driver of quality, but did agree that public funding resources were insufficient to realise the vision of NPME, and therefore that better
partnership working and identification of additional sources of support at local and regional level was essential to bring more resources into the sector.