`knowledge' within early National Curriculum related documents (1994, pp. 54-59) —
certain general commonalities run through. The main activities of performing,
composing, listening and appraising (in its critical and applied sense particular to the
music curriculum) are found throughout, albeit in differing alignments, with an
emphasis on the practical and experiential holistic nature of musical engagement.
Similarly, attention is repeatedly drawn to the musical elements of pitch, duration,
dynamics, tempo, timbre, texture and structure. Although mention of notations as means
of refining and recording is included, traditional staff notation is not obligatory for Key
Stages 1 and 2. The uses of body and voice, instruments and other sound makers are specified and a broad repertoire of music from different genres, times and countries is encouraged. This, then, is the basic 'public' knowledge (Eraut, 1994, see above) of the music curriculum with which one might expect practising primary teachers to be familiar, even though, during the year in question, the requirement to follow the specific
programmes of study had been relaxed as part of an emphasis on literacy and numeracy (Ofsted, 1998a).
The designation of certain subjects within the National Curriculum as core subjects (originally English, mathematics and science) was justified by saying that these subjects encompassed 'essential concepts, knowledge and skills without which other learning cannot take place effectively' so that competence in these subjects was 'needed throughout the curriculum, and in all aspects of adult life' (DES, 1989, para. 3.6). This inevitably set up a hierarchy (Alexander, 1994; Paechter, 2000), affecting the time and effort spent on the non-core, by implication less essential, subjects, including music. This was particularly so after the introduction of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies (NLNS) when it was reported that some schools were 'not providing sufficient depth in their teaching of non-core foundation subjects', with 'problems of coverage ... particularly marked in design and technology, art, music, geography and religious education' (Ofsted, 2002, p. 2, para. 8, my italics).
It is possibly, therefore, not surprising that in 2004 the chief inspector for schools, David Bell, could warn that 'The gap in standards and quality between English, mathematics and science and other subjects has widened. We cannot afford, and our children do not deserve, a two-tier curriculum' (Ofsted, 2004b, p. 2). On the other hand, one of the features among the successful schools in that earlier 2002 report was 'The
richness of curriculum ... and, in particular, their achievements in the arts' (Ofsted, 2002, p. 7) with music featuring frequently.
Bill Laar reported the confused messages that appear to be being sent out by the Government and by Ofsted (2004, p. 24). He suggested that the limitations in the Ofsted inspection framework meant foundation subjects grouped in blocks might only be `sampled', leading to some subjects not being inspected at all. This therefore sent a message to schools 'that is diametrically opposed to the vision of the primary strategy' set out in the document Excellence and enjoyment — a strategy for primary schools (DfES, 2003).
That document emphasises the need for schools to be creative in working out ways of achieving 'ownership of the curriculum' (DfES, 2003, p. 4) and promotes the foundation subjects in statements such as:
Excellence in teaching and enjoyment of learning is at the heart of what we are doing. Literacy and numeracy remain vital, but we want all schools to be able to offer their pupils a rich and exciting curriculum, in which every subject is taught outstandingly well. (ibid. p. 5)
Music is referred to several times, often as an area of potential creativity and as enhancing the distinctive character of a school (p. 4). New initiatives are mentioned, in particular the aspiration that all Key Stage 2 pupils who want to should learn an instrument (pp. 32 and 36). Music is also seen as a subject where the needs of gifted and talented children should be served (p. 42). Although one might query the lack of emphasis on music as a valuable subject in the general curriculum for all children, it would appear that music is still seen as an area of importance and where innovative projects are necessary and valuable. However, in that same document, as far as teaching
is concerned, music is identified as an area where 'more dedicated subject-specialist teaching may be helpful' (p. 34).
This is interesting, given that Ofsted had earlier consistently reported the quality of music teaching in primary schools to be higher than that of other subjects (1993; 1995a; 1998c). Surprisingly, given the emphasis on subject knowledge and the widespread use of specialist teachers in secondary schools, it had also been the case that the teaching of music in primary schools was regarded as better than that in secondary schools (Mills, 1997a).
The Ofsted primary music subject report for 1999-2000, the year during which my investigation took place, stated that 'teaching is good in both key stages in about half of schools and is better in Key Stage 2, maintaining recent trends' (Ofsted, 2001). That same report stated that
In nine schools in ten the curriculum for music is broad and balanced, and one third of schools have a good music curriculum. A well-planned music curriculum links well with other subjects of the National Curriculum as well as making a rich contribution to pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. (Ofsted, 2001, pp. 2-3)
This was positive, but also identified room for improvement, because 'A weakness in teaching is the lack of clarity about what is to be learned, so that pupils do not extend their work or acquire new skills in a systematic sequence' (ibid.). The corresponding report for the previous year, 1998-1999, the year in which the school involved in this study had been inspected by Ofsted, declared that teaching in both primary key stages had improved, with 'no evidence of the dip in teaching quality found in many subjects in Years 3 and 4' (Ofsted, 2000b, p.1). However, it was noted that Tew primary teachers have attended INSET in music this year' (ibid.) It was also noted that although
music' in order to accommodate the promotion of numeracy and literacy, nevertheless, in some schools, 'music is virtually missing from the timetables of teachers who would rather not teach it' (ibid.). There were also some adverse remarks about the use of broadcasts in schools that had 'failed to promote music in the curriculum' (ibid. pp. 1- 2). This, then, was the context at the time of my conversations with the teachers involved in this study.
More recently, it is reported that 'In around three fifths of schools, music provision and the achievement of pupils is good or very good' and that 'The quality of teaching is good or better in over two thirds of schools' (Ofsted, 2005, p. 5) echoing similar findings for the previous year (Ofsted, 2004a).
Despite these encouraging views from Ofsted, many primary school teachers and student teachers have expressed a lack of confidence in their ability to teach music, both before and since the inclusion of music within the National Curriculum (Barnes and Shinn-Taylor, 1988; Wragg, Bennett and Cane, 1989; Mills, 1989; Bennett, Wragg, Cane and Carter, 1992; Lawson, Plummeridge and Swanwick, 1994; Hargreaves, Comber and Galton, 1996; Jeanneret, 1997; Green, Chedzoy, Harris, Mitchell, Naughton, Rolfe and Stanton, 1998; Mills, 1998; Hennessy, 2000; Burnard, 2004; Rogers, 2005). Cox and Hennessy point out that 'The nature of inspections gives rise to large amounts of 'snapshot' evidence that may well distort our knowledge of what is going on, both in quality and effectiveness' (2001, p. 34), which might help explain these conflicting opinions. By now, all state-educated school leavers beginning initial teacher education courses will have experienced music within the National Curriculum. However, one of the most recent of the above references (Burnard, 2004) implies this has not necessarily had a beneficial effect on their confidence to teach the subject.
There are, of course, various alternative possible reasons for Ofsted's positive view. For instance, a greater lack of expertise in subjects other than music might reflect advantageously on music; or the use of subject specialists for music might give a distorted result, although, in fact, specialist teachers are not found necessarily to give the best results (Mills, 1997b). Even so, however, it would appear that teachers either are not considering the same aspects as Ofsted; that they know more than they think they do; or that they do not recognise or appreciate the relevance of all the knowledge they have. As Janet Mills, then HMI Senior Inspector for Music, commented, when discussing the first year's Ofsted findings: 'what the successful class teachers brought to their music lessons was their ability to observe pupils, work out what they could do, and plan an activity which would move them forward' (1994, p. 193). In other words, such teachers used their general pedagogic knowledge and their pedagogical content knowledge. It might be hoped that, having followed the music Programmes of Study (PoS) for several years, teachers would feel more confident in their abilities to deliver them. However, as well as those references above, a relatively recent survey from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) has reported that
Although the best resourced arts subject in terms of teacher expertise, music generates the greatest anxiety concerning lack of expertise or confidence. The evidence gives an impression that one must either be a specialist in music teaching or fear it. (Downing, Johnson and Kaur, 2003, p. 49, para. 5.1)
There is also some evidence that there may not be a common understanding of what the National Curriculum involves, with Welch and Adams, in their review of research related to music in schools, commenting that 'the research evidence is equivocal ... not least because musical behaviour and development is multi-faceted and culturally diverse' (2003, p. 16).
There have been worries about the continued place of music within the school curriculum. However, before this study began, the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment stated that
[N]o one should have any fear that school music is under threat. It is and will remain a compulsory subject in the national curriculum. The changes we have introduced to the primary curriculum do not mean, as some suggest, that music is "being dropped". It certainly is not. (Blunkett, 1998, p. 13)
As we have seen above, music and the arts continue to feature positively in government documents, helped particularly by the seminal (although initially almost ignored) report All our futures: Creativity, culture and education (National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education, 1999/2001). Despite teachers' professed lack of confidence, music in school is usually valued by staff and pupils (Lamont, Hargreaves, Marshall and Tarrant, 2003). Indeed, in the NFER report mentioned above, not only was the evidence for commitment to the arts in schools reported as 'compelling', but it was also found that 'music is the only arts subject thought by headteachers to be increasing in curriculum time' (Downing, Johnson and Kaur, 2003, p. 49). Following the Wider Opportunities pilot programme, which explored different ways of helping primary children to learn to play musical instruments (see Davies and Stephens, 2004), the DfES published the Music Manifesto in order to pull together and demonstrate the support of a number of government and other bodies for extending music opportunities for young people (DfES, 2004).
To summarise: in the sense that it has been a foundation subject within the National Curriculum since the latter's inception, music is well established within the National Curriculum as it applies to maintained schools within England. Therefore, it is worthy of research aimed at describing and clarifying teachers' knowledge within the subject.
However there is more to knowledge of music in education than the public curriculum knowledge so far described.