The crisis facing music education in Aotearoa New Zealand
Ahead of the Hui on October 27, John Drummond, Chair of METANZ outlines the major issues
For some time now we have been witnessing a serious decline in music education in this country. The achievements of a few ‘stars’ mask the fact that the fundamentals are collapsing around us. We are in serious trouble.
What’s happened to music education in the primary sector?
Over the past decade three decisions relating to education in general have had a devastating effect on the quality of music education in New Zealand.
1 The shortening of teacher-training to three years
2 The increased number of compulsory areas within the school curriculum
3 The abandonment of the music advisory service
It was difficult enough to ensure that teachers had an adequate training in music while training took four years and there were fewer subjects to be covered. The introduction of new curriculum areas, and the bringing together of music, drama, dance and visual arts into one area, plus the reduction in overall pre-service training, has meant that teachers now go into schools completely unprepared to deliver the requirements of the music curriculum.
Even when the training was longer, and more time could be given to music, many teachers entered schools with a significant lack of confidence. The music advisory service played a significant role in the maintaining of high-quality music education through ongoing in-service training. Its phasing out has meant that teachers no longer have regular ongoing back-up to support their work in the classroom. They can certainly download resources from the internet – but do they really understand them? Do we only want teachers who parrot someone else’s teaching plans? Don’t our primary pupils deserve better?
There is no doubt that the music curriculum is a worthy document. The Ministry has put time into supporting its implementation, but that work has been largely cosmetic, for the problems with delivering music education lie much deeper. We have a systemic problem.
What’s happened to music education in the secondary sector?
The norm for training secondary teachers is that they obtain a University degree in music and then add a one-year graduate teacher training. It is presumed that the universities will look after the content of the music curriculum, enabling the teacher training institutions to focus on delivery in schools.
In fact the gap between the expectations of the school secondary curriculum and what is offered by university Schools and Departments of Music is very wide. Most tertiary music institutions focus on Western classical music, with comparatively little attention paid to other musics, including the musics of the culturally diverse communities of New Zealand Aotearoa. In consequence, most teachers entering the secondary sector have a natural bias towards one kind of music, which colours the way they deliver a curriculum which is supposed to have no cultural bias at all. Further, the significance given to creating and performing music is not reflected in university courses, except for those students who specialise in either performance or composition, and those who do undertake these specialities (a) seldom do both, and (b) specialise in kinds and levels of performance and creative music that are not relevant to the secondary situation.
Once they arrive in their secondary positions, music teachers usually find they are in hell. To do their jobs properly they never have time to eat lunch and must work every day after school; they must respond to the demands of principals who see music only as a public face of the school in the community and who want a thriving extra-curricular programme as well as a curricular one; they must work without adequate resources, and undertake all the complex administration of their programmes as well as teaching, rehearsing, conducting, directing, advising, mentoring and providing extra tutorial assistance when required. Many secondary music teachers give up and walk away; others suffer serious burn-out and are carried away. Some incredible people actually stay in the job, sustained by the students they teach. There is something seriously wrong with a system that allows all this to happen.
What’s happened to the other government-funded programmes for music education?
Many years ago the government established the Out-of-Hours programme for primary and intermediate pupils, and the Itinerant Teachers of Music programme for secondary pupils. Both were enterprising developments, and have proved their worth in terms of the way they have started many performers on professional careers and stimulated the appreciation of music in others.
But both programmes are hovering on the edge of collapse. Their inadequate funding is on the basis of roll-over, with resources allocated without regard to need, equity, quality assurance or professional development. Those providing it at the grass-roots level are disillusioned.
What’s happened in the private sector?
The emphasis on the free market has led to a multiplicity of private providers offering music tuition, some of them respectable and some of them not. The consumer is not able to measure the value of them, since the value of investment in time and money does not become apparent immediately, but only after some years. The Institute of Registered Music Teachers struggles to maintain a quality of provision, but is fighting a losing battle. Its heritage in Western classical music makes it difficult for it to embrace other musics.
Is it all bad news?
It’s never all bad news. Some teachers are doing wonderful work. But they’re mostly doing it in spite of the system rather than because of it. Young New Zealanders are creating and making wonderful music – but they are often doing so outside the music education system because the system is failing them. The government recognizes the value of the creative industries and the cultural industries, and puts in significant funding to support them – but it doesn’t seem to realise that the individuals who work in these industries aren’t getting the learning opportunities and support that they need to develop the skills and knowledge to become really successful. It is tragically ironic that we talk about the need to have an innovative, creative, imaginative work-force in the modern world, but we fail to support properly one of the learning areas that not only opens the doors to innovative, creative, imaginative practices, but is one that young people are enthusiastic about, as a major part of their ordinary lives.
We may well have a wonderful opportunity before us.
John Drummond
METANZ
October 2007
For some time now we have been witnessing a serious decline in music education in this country. The achievements of a few ‘stars’ mask the fact that the fundamentals are collapsing around us. We are in serious trouble.
What’s happened to music education in the primary sector?
Over the past decade three decisions relating to education in general have had a devastating effect on the quality of music education in New Zealand.
1 The shortening of teacher-training to three years
2 The increased number of compulsory areas within the school curriculum
3 The abandonment of the music advisory service
It was difficult enough to ensure that teachers had an adequate training in music while training took four years and there were fewer subjects to be covered. The introduction of new curriculum areas, and the bringing together of music, drama, dance and visual arts into one area, plus the reduction in overall pre-service training, has meant that teachers now go into schools completely unprepared to deliver the requirements of the music curriculum.
Even when the training was longer, and more time could be given to music, many teachers entered schools with a significant lack of confidence. The music advisory service played a significant role in the maintaining of high-quality music education through ongoing in-service training. Its phasing out has meant that teachers no longer have regular ongoing back-up to support their work in the classroom. They can certainly download resources from the internet – but do they really understand them? Do we only want teachers who parrot someone else’s teaching plans? Don’t our primary pupils deserve better?
There is no doubt that the music curriculum is a worthy document. The Ministry has put time into supporting its implementation, but that work has been largely cosmetic, for the problems with delivering music education lie much deeper. We have a systemic problem.
What’s happened to music education in the secondary sector?
The norm for training secondary teachers is that they obtain a University degree in music and then add a one-year graduate teacher training. It is presumed that the universities will look after the content of the music curriculum, enabling the teacher training institutions to focus on delivery in schools.
In fact the gap between the expectations of the school secondary curriculum and what is offered by university Schools and Departments of Music is very wide. Most tertiary music institutions focus on Western classical music, with comparatively little attention paid to other musics, including the musics of the culturally diverse communities of New Zealand Aotearoa. In consequence, most teachers entering the secondary sector have a natural bias towards one kind of music, which colours the way they deliver a curriculum which is supposed to have no cultural bias at all. Further, the significance given to creating and performing music is not reflected in university courses, except for those students who specialise in either performance or composition, and those who do undertake these specialities (a) seldom do both, and (b) specialise in kinds and levels of performance and creative music that are not relevant to the secondary situation.
Once they arrive in their secondary positions, music teachers usually find they are in hell. To do their jobs properly they never have time to eat lunch and must work every day after school; they must respond to the demands of principals who see music only as a public face of the school in the community and who want a thriving extra-curricular programme as well as a curricular one; they must work without adequate resources, and undertake all the complex administration of their programmes as well as teaching, rehearsing, conducting, directing, advising, mentoring and providing extra tutorial assistance when required. Many secondary music teachers give up and walk away; others suffer serious burn-out and are carried away. Some incredible people actually stay in the job, sustained by the students they teach. There is something seriously wrong with a system that allows all this to happen.
What’s happened to the other government-funded programmes for music education?
Many years ago the government established the Out-of-Hours programme for primary and intermediate pupils, and the Itinerant Teachers of Music programme for secondary pupils. Both were enterprising developments, and have proved their worth in terms of the way they have started many performers on professional careers and stimulated the appreciation of music in others.
But both programmes are hovering on the edge of collapse. Their inadequate funding is on the basis of roll-over, with resources allocated without regard to need, equity, quality assurance or professional development. Those providing it at the grass-roots level are disillusioned.
What’s happened in the private sector?
The emphasis on the free market has led to a multiplicity of private providers offering music tuition, some of them respectable and some of them not. The consumer is not able to measure the value of them, since the value of investment in time and money does not become apparent immediately, but only after some years. The Institute of Registered Music Teachers struggles to maintain a quality of provision, but is fighting a losing battle. Its heritage in Western classical music makes it difficult for it to embrace other musics.
Is it all bad news?
It’s never all bad news. Some teachers are doing wonderful work. But they’re mostly doing it in spite of the system rather than because of it. Young New Zealanders are creating and making wonderful music – but they are often doing so outside the music education system because the system is failing them. The government recognizes the value of the creative industries and the cultural industries, and puts in significant funding to support them – but it doesn’t seem to realise that the individuals who work in these industries aren’t getting the learning opportunities and support that they need to develop the skills and knowledge to become really successful. It is tragically ironic that we talk about the need to have an innovative, creative, imaginative work-force in the modern world, but we fail to support properly one of the learning areas that not only opens the doors to innovative, creative, imaginative practices, but is one that young people are enthusiastic about, as a major part of their ordinary lives.
We may well have a wonderful opportunity before us.
John Drummond
METANZ
October 2007