Government has recently espoused the aim that every primary pupil should have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument. On the surface this seems an admirable aim but can this be achieved without a massive increase in resources, asks Geoffrey Moses?
The current emphasis on access has led to the main problem facing county music services at present: the necessity for group teaching. This inevitably leads to the different abilities and commitment amongst pupils causing frustration, as individuals within groups do not move at a uniform pace. Insufficient rigour in the teaching process encourages low expectations; even for non-beginners, for example, poor intonation and lack of basic musical ability are tolerated so as to accommodate all-comers. Technique is not developed. Associated Board examinations are taken much later than with privately taught pupils. Group lessons are not giving good value. Without a significant increase in expenditure, as more children are encouraged to learn and more stress is placed on the system, the situation will worsen not improve.
Access for all without adequate resources will inevitably limit the opportunities for talented individuals to progress. Pupils who are talented and committed are forced to seek private tuition with one-to-one attention and its commensurate benefits. Private tuition also sometimes brings contact with professional instrumentalists who often can inspire and motivate effectively. Realistically it is usually pupils who have the advantage of individual tuition who develop into the professional musicians of the future: is this acceptable for those with talent but without means? Some pupils, of course, will never aspire to this and may have an equal right to learn, for their general self-development, esteem and pleasure. There is no easy answer to this access versus excellence conundrum, but, currently, the balance in county music services is clearly biased against excellence.
Music services have to recognise the problems current policies create before any progress can be made, and enlisting the aid of political dogma to justify an inclusive but under-performing provision is all too easy. Prevailing government policies for the arts at present are aimed at finding added value through broad educational and social benefits rather than valuing art for its own sake ? hence the disinclination to make excellence rather than maximum access the priority.
How should music services change?
- Face up to the inequalities that are present in pupils? natural abilities and recognise that pupils are individuals and that one size does not fit all.
- Apply more rigour in assessing pupils? potential and carry out selection when necessary.
- Seek to provide individual tuition if at all possible, using talent as the criteria and direct and manage resources to this end.
- Be inclusive in the provision of opportunity but accept that learning an instrument is an activity that requires some natural talent as well as effort and commitment, therefore not all can achieve success. If this is branded as élitist, recognise that there is a necessary element of élitism and that inclusiveness must be the servant of excellence in this case. It is through the pursuit of individual excellence that art is best served.
Music services must decide where their priorities lie. Is instrumental tuition just another facet of creativity which we are pompously told by government is ?at the heart of education?, or is it a special skill or art worth learning and developing for its own sake and for the music it brings to life?
Geoffrey Moses is an opera singer, arts manager and primary school governor.
e: geoffhaydn@aol.com