Time available to teach junior classes

The amount of timetabled time available to teachers for their junior classes varied widely among the study participants. For example, in three schools in the study, the only timetabled time for music learning in the junior school was one term in year 9 and two terms in year 10. Cam, the HOD from one of these schools – a school which, ironically, took great public pride in the musical accomplishments of its students – noted that in the junior school, “Our students have less than three eighths the amount of time in music as they have, say, in social studies or science or mathematics” (C:12). Cam’s experience was in sharp contrast with that of the teachers at the two schools which offered full-year courses in both years 9 and 10. Rae, whose students had full- year courses in both years 9 and 10, was satisfied with the time they provided to prepare students for senior music. He noted of his year 10 course, “It’s quite an intensive course they go through, but I think they’re well set up to face anything in NCEA by having completed that course” (R:9).

The experience of the majority of teachers in the study was, however, much more akin to Cam’s situation than Rae’s. They reported that the time they had available to teach their junior classes was inadequate and, in many cases, seriously inadequate. The situation was particularly difficult at year 9.

A music advisor highlighted the core problem, stating, “Very few schools have whole year courses these days and often they are the private schools” (MA1:41). Only four of

the current practitioners in the study worked in schools which offered full-year courses in music in year 9. Of these, one was a private school, and another was a large music- focused, high decile state school, which in fact offered three distinct year 9 music courses. In a further school, the year-long course had been sanctioned by a principal who was a former HOD Music. In the final school the year-long course was due to be replaced the following year by a short course.

At year 9, for the majority of teachers, the ‘norm’ was a short course, usually of one to two terms in duration, providing perhaps 20 to 30 hours of learning time. Short courses – often termed ‘taster’ courses – appeared to be a pragmatic response by school management to the imperative to fit more subjects into their curriculum than there is adequate time for. Ironically for music, the amount of time available for year 9 and 10 music in fact represented a reduction to the number of hours that were available prior to the introduction of the arts as a learning area. One of the music advisors, drawing on experience at regional and national levels, provided a perspective on the introduction of ‘tasters’:

I am appalled, and perhaps it’s starting to settle now, as I’m less appalled as time has gone on, but there is a huge shift especially at year 9 and 10, and year 10 especially is impacting NCEA. And schools started bringing in the ‘tasters’ at year nine. And they refer to them as ‘tasters’, which upsets me something terrible; short blocks, six weeks, or one ten week term and “We’ll do one of music, we’ll do one of drama, we’ll do one of dance and then we might put it all together for Christmas and do something for the end of the year”. (MA2:13)

The advisor contrasted this situation with past practice, where year 9 students had “perhaps half a year of an hour a week, or two hours a week, or a whole year of even one. At that stage they did have that flow through” (MA2:14). In commenting that the amount of time at year 10 had also been reduced, the advisor pointed to the implications for senior students, and also to the fact that school management often did not take account of the fact that the level 1 NCEA standards in music pre-suppose two years of prior learning at secondary school:

The time has been taken from the year 10s as well, and schools don’t seem to realise that the music standards are actually written from year 9. You know, the requirements are set at two and half to three years [of] tuition and they’re assuming, or taking the attitude, that they can actually pick them up for [NCEA] level 1 at year 11. (MA2:14)

When NCEA standards were created, such assumptions might have been reasonable. The teachers’ comments suggested that the crowded curriculum has made teaching to the standards problematic.

The majority of teachers commented that the limited time available in the junior school made it impossible to cover sufficient content, or to target learning effectively. Cam, for example, commented that he had been forced to cut back the amount of content taught at year 9. He stated, “It’s not enough [time] in year 9 to do very much at all. We’ve really pared back our course because we found that we were trying to get through too much content” (C:13). “You get this big batch of students all in together and they could be spread out far and wide” (C:13). He added that although he did try to differentiate learning where possible, even that was difficult. “Having them for such a short amount of time, you’re barely getting to really know them well before they leave” (C:13).

Several teachers reported that the lack of time in the junior school deterred many students – especially those without prior learning in music – from studying music. Cam commented:

It limits the students who might opt to take music, because I think that music attracts the students who have had outside tuition or perhaps have done music lessons from the itinerant system. I don’t think it attracts as many students who might have started at year 9 with their first formal study of music, and then believe that they can actually have a chance of success further up the school. … I think in music they see where they fit, and their inexperience stands out. (C:5)

Teachers were particularly concerned that the one-term and half-year courses provided insufficient time to prepare students for years 11, 12 and 13, and in particular to meet NCEA level 1, 2, and 3 standards which are set at levels 6, 7 and 8 of the curriculum respectively, and require accelerating degrees of sophistication. New Zealand’s four term school year means that by year 11, students will have completed eight terms of secondary education. Cam however reported that in music, “My students were actually in their fourth term of study – beginning their fourth term of study, when they started NCEA 1” (C:36). He added wryly that, the problem for music teachers is that no one has ever specified what “a year’s worth of study” (C:36) is, in relation to the music standards.

Even where a full-year course operated in year 10, if the time for music in year 9 had been cut short, there was still insufficient time to prepare students adequately for year 11 study. Darryl observed of the year 10 class, “So it is a full year, three days a week. So three days isn’t enough. It simply isn’t enough, especially with the nature of NCEA, focusing on performance. You need to give them time to play in groups and do solos” (D:20).

Cam identified another major impact of short courses saying, “It’s also disjointed because you may have a student taking music in term one of year 9, and then maybe in terms one and two in year 10, and then wanting to begin in year 11. So they’ve had significant gaps in their learning” (C12-13).

Tracy identified other, less obvious, consequences of disjointed junior music courses for teachers. The NCEA assessment standards in performance, which generally constitute a central part of year 11 music courses, are set at level 6 of the curriculum and require a student to be at a standard equivalent to a “third year of study through itinerant lessons” (AS90012). Year 9 students who are not timetabled for music until later in the year may not have been alerted to the need to start learning an instrument at the beginning of the year and so may not have covered the requisite ground on their performance instrument before Year 11.

A further critical issue for the teachers, and one which had the potential to greatly affect the often fragile numbers in senior music classes, pertained to the choices junior students made in relation to their following year of study. Tracy outlined the problem succinctly, stating, “The half-year [courses] are difficult too, because kids make subject decisions halfway through the year and if they haven’t had music yet they’re not going to choose it” (T:42).

The problem of insufficient time to prepare for senior study was greatly amplified in the ‘one size fits all’ courses. In these courses the teachers had to juggle the imperative to address major gaps in learning of those students who had entered year 9 with little prior learning in music, while still covering significant new ground in a very short period of time to provide an adequate pathway into senior music. At the same time, teachers also had to provide meaningful musical experiences for the group of students taking music as part of their core arts requirement, rather than because they wanted to continue on to senior study. Issues of what to focus on abounded. For example, the extent to which to music notation skills – which become increasingly important for

students as they move into senior music study – should be included in such courses was an ongoing cause of tension for a number of the teachers.

Schools within in the study which provided two separate courses at year 9, typically ran a core music programme as part of their provision of the arts, similar in nature to the ‘one size fits all’ programmes. Alongside this, they ran a music option class for students wishing to continue their music studies in the senior school. Typically teachers ran a broad course, introducing students to the activities they would meet in the senior school.

Two schools offered a band programme, based on programmes such as the American ‘Standards of Excellence’ in which music classes operate as a band, with students playing music together each lesson, gradually building skills and repertoire. In such cases, the teacher acted as music director and conductor. Viv, who had taught in such a programme at a previous school, was determined to introduce it at his new school. He saw the band programme as a way of ensuring that students would become involved in the extra-curricular music programme, which would in turn provide them with much needed continuity in their musical learning. He commented:

The difficulty with year 10 is that to get them to year 11, you mostly get them from the ones that have just finished doing music. And you’ve got to work hard getting them from the ones in their first semester, and that’s why we’ve got to get them into these band classes because that means they’ll be involved in extra-curricular stuff, which means that they still become part of the music. (V:24)

Whereas the teachers representing most schools in the study shared the experience of having insufficient time in their junior classes, there was one school, known for its focus on music education, which in fact offered three different year 9 courses: compulsory core music for all year 9 students, option music for students serious in their intention to study music, and an auditioned extension class for able musicians. However, in sharp contrast to this, not all schools made music a compulsory subject at year 9, choosing instead to offer a smorgasbord of arts subjects from which students could choose. In such schools, year 9 students who did not opt into the music class, did not receive any secondary music education.

Music teachers were aware that they are not alone in the expectation that they would have to ‘make do’ and manage their junior teaching with what they saw as an

inadequate allocation of time. It was an issue that impacted on some other subject areas as well. A music advisor noted in this regard:

I feel powerless in many ways as an advisor. I’ve sat in on discussions with timetablers and principals and management and you know, it’s the whole overloaded crowded curriculum thing, and balance. “Be thankful that you’re getting as [much as] you are.” That sort of thing. (MA1:42)