The empirical data outlining interviewees’ perceptions of and approaches to the statutory 2007 music curriculum for 11-14 year-old pupils is the focus for discussion in this second theme. Unlike DENI’s 1989 Education NI Order with its 1992 statutory Programmes of Study for Music (1992, 1996) the 2006 Education NI Order and the 2007 curriculum resulted in increased complexity that required music, for example, to promote not only pupils’ musical knowledge, understanding and skills, but to do so through a range of compulsory Key Element (KE) learning contexts which were not necessarily within the historically perceived compass of music education. One aim of talking to teachers about the music curriculum was to consider their responses to the present curriculum in relation to its designed intentions and their understanding, interpretation and implementation of music’s demands, as prefaced in Harland et al.’s (2005) study of NI’s 1992 statutory curriculum.
The 2007 music curriculum for 11-14 year-old pupils was embedded within the whole school curriculum for KS 3 under what was termed ‘The Big Picture’ (see Figure 4.5 in Chapter 4). Traditional subjects were described as ‘subject strands’ ensconced within ‘areas of learning’ so as “to strike a balancebetween acknowledging teachers’ subject expertise and the need for coherence and linkages across the curriculum as a whole” (CCEA, 2007, p. 14). Music was situated in ‘The Arts’ area of learning, thus giving the impression of collegiality within arts teaching and learning. The
Gulbenkian Report’s (1982) holistic view of the arts was not, however, a reality (see Chapter 3, Section 3.2) since the curriculum included discrete programmes of study for music, art and design and drama, “narrowly pigeon-holed” programmes of study, as previously described by White (1992, p. 34). The concept of Learning Areas in CCEA’s Big Picture was misleading in terms of curriculum subjects and discrete
programmes of study because, in addition to the historical traditional subjects, school timetabling was required to include four new programmes of study (Personal
Development, Local and Global Citizenship and Employability) set out in the Big Picture as ‘Learning for Life and Work’ (see Figure 4.5). These, along with a strong focus on a range of cross-curricular skills, attributes and competencies were intended to enhance pupils’ learning, possibly at the expense of breadth and/or depth, in individual subjects. In effect, the outworking of the ‘Big Picture’ appeared to have resulted in an over-crowded curriculum, placing significant constraints on school management. This point was made by Peter, the Vice Principal in a PC grammar school when he talked about the need to broaden and extend the curriculum. Glad of the fact that music was a compulsory subject, he recounted his management
experience. “You’re looking at subjects; and if you’re looking to introduce an additional GCSE or trying to change the timetable, there’s immense pressure” (interview with Peter, p. 6). Another perspective was outlined by Dorothy in her PP grammar school in the South when she claimed, “there’s so much to do now in the [music] curriculum, it’s finding the time to put it all in” (interview with Dorothy, p.6).
The challenge, outlined above, sets the context for discussing the empirical data under the following three sub-themes: ‘Curriculum Objectives’; ‘Classroom Practice’; and ‘Mutual Understanding’. Teachers’ responses to implementing the specified musical activity within CCEA’s KE learning contexts are discussed, firstly by focusing on sub- theme 1, the ‘Curriculum Objectives’ in the following section.
5.4.1 ‘Curriculum Objectives’
This section discusses the interviewees’ responses to the specified objectives of the 2007 music curriculum. Their implementation task was to develop pupils’ musical knowledge, understanding and skills within a range of non-music specific elements that included twelve statutory KE learning contexts (see figure 4.4). These were intended to promote pupils’ wider development as individuals, as contributors to society, and to the economy and the environment (The Statutory Curriculum at KS 3, DENI/CCEA, 2007). Music teachers were further challenged by the fact that some statutory learning contexts were not music specific, but still had to be implemented by the teachers (Music Guidance, CCEA, 2007, p. 11). As a CCEA music officer during the time of
curriculum development I had no doubt that music had the potential to address all the KEs but that they were not fundamental to developing pupils’ musical knowledge, skills and understanding. It is also important to acknowledge that curriculum objectives as designed and intended have the potential to be interpreted in different ways by those tasked with their implementation and that teachers would have their own valued
musical objectives. While none of the interviewed teachers challenged the introduction of the additional statutory KE learning contexts, there was limited evidence of their perceived importance within severely restricted music timetables. It would be unfortunate if the music curriculum as stated in the Music PoS contributed to a public perception that music education is important, not necessarily for its implicit musical value, but for the extra non-musical skills or knowledge it can engender. Although not convinced of the full breadth of Philip’s stated belief, I was pleased to hear his view that “everything in music is cross-curricular - you can teach every subject through music” (interview with Philip, p. 4).
Hargreaves’ (2000) quotation at the beginning of this chapter was representative of the teachers interviewed since they appeared to accept, unconditionally, the full breadth of requirements in the music curriculum. It was obvious that by 2010, the three years of the KS 3 music curriculum had been completed and participants would have established their individual approaches to its implementation. Their views on implementing the full content of the PoS needed to be taken at face value since ETI subject-specific
inspections had been largely replaced by a focus on literacy and numeracy and the new educational initiatives that included Shared Education. Although not voiced, it is possible that Paul’s PP grammar school impression of the 2007 music curriculum may have been representative of many teachers when he suggested “If they had good schemes of work, they took those schemes of work and tried to make them fit in”
(interview with Paul, p. 2). Grammar school teachers Nora and Jayne were dismissive of employing a tick-box approach to covering the discrete KE learning contexts, of the curriculum. Jayne’s PC comment was,
I don’t think I could flourish in an environment where you’re having to tick boxes for the sake of ticking boxes, but the children are not actually benefitting at all. (Interview with Jayne, p. 10)
And Anna, in a PP grammar school, admitted,
I don’t think I’ve looked at the curriculum in depth since we re-jigged the schemes of work to make sure it was in line with everything. (Interview with Anna, p. 6)
Despite their own valuing of music as a cultural phenomenon, participants’ approaches to implementing the contextual requirements of the programme of study (regarded by Alan, Jayne and Paul as ‘contrived’) also appeared to contribute to the imposed instrumental objectives. For example, the KE ‘Employability’, which underpinned Alan’s PP secondary school music curriculum was the one requirement of the 2007 PoS which appeared to have an impact across the secondary/grammar divide. It was cited by eleven teachers as encouragement for those pupils who did not have the opportunity to avail of private instrumental tuition. The KEs ‘Media Awareness’, ‘Ethical Awareness’ and ‘Employability’ contexts were used to develop pupils’ ability to become
discriminating consumers of music and to increase awareness of employment opportunities across wider aspects of the music industry. These were an important aspect of Rose’s PP grammar school introduction for her first year pupils (Year 8) arising from their lack of musical experience in the different rural primary schools. Rose told of how she addressed issues around pupils’ lack of performing skills during their classroom conversations.
You don’t play an instrument or your instrumental skills are not strong enough, but you want to work in the music industry, what else can you do? You could be a music journalist, or work in a studio or all of that. I try to say that music isn’t all about performance. (Interview with Rose, p. 4)
Jayne in her PC grammar school had talked of being more familiar with the English National Curriculum (DfE, 2014) because she used ‘the ‘Musical Futures’ performing approach in her teaching and had attended relevant training that was more aligned to the English National Curriculum. This created an incentive for me to consider the curriculum objectives across both English and NI music curriculum programmes and to compare the English curriculum’s clearly-stated music requirements with NI’s curriculum complexity. It clarified Jayne’s positive reference to being more familiar with the English curriculum and made me more understanding of the possibly lower level at which the KE learning contexts operated in NI’s music classrooms.
The KS 3 music curriculum (Figure 4.4, p. 79) set a significant challenge for music teachers since all aspects of music-specific development were to be accomplished within twelve diverse, but legally-binding, learning contexts, only five of which
identified statutory composing, performing and listening activities. It was obvious from comments by Paul, Jayne, Anna and Rose, above, and by other teachers identified in the chapter, that the statutory KE requirements to promote, for example, pupils’ spiritual,
media and ethical awareness required classroom discussion time along with the music- specific teaching focus. As interviews with the teachers progressed over the research period, I was left with the impression that as a result of restricted timetabled allocation for the subject, the music-specific objectives appeared to take precedence over the non-music KEs. My impression is supported by Table 5.2 in the following section which provides evidence of teachers’ focus on musical activity across the three years of KS 3.
In focusing on performance, Alan in his PP secondary school and Jayne in her PC grammar school appeared to have the same performing-based music curriculum
objectives. Alan explained, “You cook in home economics, you draw in art, you play in music” because “I have to make sure that all children have musical experiences while they are at school” (interview with Alan, p. 5). Jayne’s objective was to engage her students “in the way music should be, which is practical and gives them ownership of the music that they’re making (interview with Jayne, p. 4). Yet, despite the two having the same musical objectives, their rationales differed. Alan’s focus was ‘Employability’ in that he wanted his pupils to be able to earn money by performing within and beyond their local community. Jayne, on the other hand, was concerned about involving her students in (cross-curricular) decision-making processes, but with the understanding, “you’re still the teacher, you’re still guiding; you’re still facilitating and you’re still teaching” (interview with Jayne, p.4). It is possible that Alan’s and Jayne’s
performance-based musical objectives may have been consistent with Elliott’s (1995) ‘musicing’ which he identified as a synonym for performing. Performance equalled 100% of Alan’s teaching and at least 50% of Jayne’s. Elliott considered music in its various presentations as performing arts where the outcome is always ‘performance’. This was certainly Alan’s acknowledged basis for his secondary-school music-making while Jayne’s grammar school approach appeared to move ‘musicing’ into a wider area of learning required by the whole-curriculum, but also reflecting Elliott’s expanded view of ‘musicing’.
As the data collection progressed, it became clear that at least three teachers were using ‘popular’ music as a basis for developing pupils’ interests and musical knowledge in year 8 of KS 3. Alan voiced a learning objective of three secondary school teachers when he said,
You have to start from their ground and work up because if it’s not within their realm of understanding you’re not going to be able to engage with them. I find their interests and work to influence them
with whatever I would then like to do. (Interview with Alan, P. 2)
His position was similar to that of John and Helen in their Northern PC and PP secondary schools. At the beginning of the school year John spoke of using pupils’ choice of music as a basis for teaching what he described as “quite difficult concepts, done in a fun way” (interview with John, p. 2) and Helen created what she called “a level playing field” where the resulting “cacophony of sound” gave her pupils opportunities “to be themselves - because everybody’s style is totally valid” (interview with Helen, p. 3). John’s, Helen’s and Alan’s responses were also indicative of secondary-school teachers’ pastoral concerns for those pupils who may have been unsuccessful in the grammar school entrance tests. Their focus went beyond the curriculum objectives to support their pupils’ self-perception and confidence when they highlighted the importance of engaging pupils’ interest, valuing their efforts, and supporting their self-esteem. Carol’s PP grammar school comment provided a different perspective and outcome when she also spoke about her first year grammar school pupils aged 11-12 years.
Whenever pupils come in Year 8 and we talk to them about music in their lives. They all tell us that music is a big part of their life ... yet right through Key Stage 3 I think they struggle to see the link between that and learning music in school and being open to learning more theory about music which they can apply to Pop and Rock and things like that. (Interview with Carol, p. 1)
The overriding impression gained from talking to teachers was that they believed they were implementing the full breadth of the Music curriculum and, therefore, addressing the specified KE learning contexts. However, the interview conversations identified at least three whose teaching content was influenced, if not by their own decisions, but by pupils’ community and cultural backgrounds. As the teachers talked about their
curriculum content, it became apparent that the non-statutory curriculum examples and statements in the PoS had played a supportive role in helping them meet statutory requirements, and even, perhaps, a fairly consistent approach to developing content across the three years of the KS. The point regarding the non-statutory examples in the POS was made by Beth, “It gives ideas of what to do” (interview with Beth, p. 5) and by Gail, “It’s always good to get an example of a general curriculum point because you can put that into your own unit as well” (interview with Gail, p. 3). The curriculum reality was consistent with Drummond’s (2001) research findings. All but one teacher saw music’s value portrayed primarily through their extra-curricular work and examination outcomes, an interesting dilemma since the statutory KS 3 curriculum objectives played no part in extra-curricular activity but may have provided a basis for later examination preparation.
Essentially, in terms of music curriculum objectives there was ample evidence to show participants’ commitment to the value of a musical education for all pupils in the classroom. How teachers interpreted and implemented the overall curriculum
objectives was fundamental to music’s ability to help achieve not only pupils’ musical and extra-musical potential, but also its potential to promote community cohesion through their understanding and appreciation of NI’s cultural divisions. It was also apparent that some teachers supplemented the curriculum objectives with their own particular value objectives of what was important in their music classrooms. It was exemplified, for example by Jayne’s and Alan’s focus on performing and by the pastoral- focused objectives of the secondary school teachers. These factors are addressed through participant teachers’ classroom practice in implementing the content of the music curriculum, as discussed through ‘classroom practice’ in the following section.
5.4.2 ‘Classroom Practice’
This section discusses the interviewees’ views on implementing the demands of the 2007 music curriculum which were coded under ‘Classroom Practice’. It addresses
differences between grammar and secondary schools; the impact of music technology; and progression across the 11-14 years age range of Key Stage 3.
One of the most significant outcomes of the semi-structured interviews was the
different approaches to curriculum implementation reported in secondary and grammar schools. As indicated in the previous section, all teachers’ main concern was to develop pupils’ musicality, but one interesting point about curricular difference between
grammar and secondary schools was made by PC grammar school teacher, Gail. While the secondary school teachers talked about engaging pupils’ interest by using their preferred musical styles, Gail’s view was,
We wouldn’t do lots of their own styles of music because lots of our music students would be capable of doing that for themselves. We would try to push them on a bit to broaden their horizons. (Interview with Gail, p. 1)
A focus on addressing the KE learning contexts of the PoS was referenced in the previous section, but only Joan, in her PC secondary school, appeared to infuse the KEs of
We do the anti-smoking campaign in Year 8 and compose jingles. We look at Health and Safety issues because of equipment. We look at film music and the power of music in uplifting mood and creating atmosphere throughout Years 8, 9 and 10. It’s embedded right throughout the curriculum. (Interview with Joan, p. 3)
In general, the lack of consistency in children’s primary-school musical experience was a very important aspect of the Year 8 curriculum for pupils in their first year of post- primary education. All but two of the teachers (Alan and Jayne), started Year 8 by focusing on the musical elements, a consistent approach since the 1992 curriculum, to “get everybody on the same playing field” (interview with Paul, p. 6). In this respect, it was likely that classroom practice in Year 8 had remained largely unchanged, since primary-school music was still dependent on generalist teachers with varying degrees of expertise. Alan’s secondary school and Jayne’s grammar school Year 8 programmes were different in that they introduced harmony as part of their performance-based approaches to the curriculum.
Within the music PoS ‘Cultural understanding’ was a statutory KE designed to place local NI traditions within the wider remit of world musics. The aim was to encourage pupils to position their own particular NI culture(s) within a wider context, thus developing a more global appreciation of difference. World musics formed a popular area of learning where much performance activity was based on percussion and rhythm. African
drumming appeared to have become popular particularly in schools located in the East and South while Rose, in the West, spoke of her pupils playing samba drums in the local carnival. The grammar school approach to world musics seemed to focus more on wider learning outcomes than in the secondary schools. For example, Dorothy in her PP grammar school had her pupils’ progress, in stages, from African drumming to
performing and exploring cyclic music and rondo form, followed by composition. Nora, also in a PP grammar school had her pupils move from world music listening activities to researching and presenting their findings on music from particular countries. Sharon was uncertain about the demands of addressing world musics, “It’s up to the individual teacher as to how they actually portray that” (interview with Sharon p. 2). Sharon, like all the teachers, was reflecting the promotion of cross-cultural understanding in NI which was evidenced in the discussion of sub-theme, ‘Promoting Cross-cultural Understanding’, in section 5.3.3.
It was very obvious from participants’ comments that music technology, had greatly