A Postcard from Victoria: Can we really

call this music education?

But do I spot a glimmer of hope?
Anne Lierse

If we are to prepare successfully for the twenty-first century we will have to do more than just improve
literacy and numeracy skills, We need a broad, flexible and motivating education that recognises the
different talents of all children and delivers excellence for everyone.
(All Our Futures: p. 6)
I find it very curious that educational philosophies can chop and change so rapidly in the government
arena. In Victoria, as governments have come and gone, in the past six years curriculum priorities have
included Languages other than English (LOTE), technology, physical education and sport. Today the
priority is literacy and numeracy. This appears to negate the contribution of other curriculum areas to
the development of literacy and numeracy. It is also devaluing the part music and the arts play in the
total development of the child. With so many demands made on the school’s resources, music has fared
very badly in school’s allocation of funds from the Global Budget. This is despite the plethora of
research that clearly shows the enormous benefits of music education to the child. It is, however,
encouraging to see this research being embraced in the USA where National Standards are being
developed, and in the UK where the Department for Education and Employment has developed an
action plan supported by funding to reinstate music into the national curriculum and greatly enhance its
provision nationwide.
But then again, perhaps it is our fault that we are ignored. (I mean here musicians and music
educators). What are we really doing about the poor state of music education in our schools? Tom
Woods (Music Forum 6/3) drew our attention to the "devastating" state of music education in NSW
government schools. He also argues that professional musicians are not a product of a state education
system but a product of private instrumental teachers. Things are not so different in Victoria and one
can only speculate on the potential waste of talent (the future Simon Rattles) which will never be
developed due to the lack of resources in many of our government schools.
Even as a middle-class kid, I could not have become a musician without the huge, varied infrastructure
of music services provided by Liverpool in the 1960s.
Simon Rattle (All Our Futures, p.142)
I believe we need to ask ourselves three important questions. First, do we really have a clear vision and
an action plan for the provision and improvement of music education for the 21st century? Second,
have we any real agreement on what music education in schools should consist of in the 21st century?
And third, do we have well-articulated arguments we can put to education policy makers and school
principals in support for an increase in the provision of music education and an increase in funding for
music education in schools? Regrettably I believe we have to say no to these three questions.
Consequently cuts to music programs are still forthcoming in government secondary schools and the
quality of most programs remains limited, of relatively poor quality, and frequently just token.
Fortunately Victoria still does have a small number of ‘light house’ music programs including those
left over from the times of the formation of Music Placement schools in the late 1970s and 1980s.
Unfortunately these schools can be counted on the fingers of both hands.
Governments know this. Reports from a number of major studies conducted between 1977 – 1999
reveal the sorry state of music education in government schools. Each study found that there were
serious problems with provision and resourcing of music programs. What is most interesting is that
each report concluded with lists of the benefits of a music education to the child and concluded with a
very similar list of recommendations. Apart from some gains to music following the Report of the
music education committee of review (Ray Report, 1989) these recommendations were basically
ignored or resulted in token reform.
Unfortunately, most gains were quickly lost when the Kennett government was elected in 1992 and the
Schools of the Future policies were implemented. Already short of the resources for the provision of
effective music education programs, schools were now presented with the impossible task of
maintaining existing programs with decreased teaching resources as a result of the drastic cuts to the
education budget (schools lost approximately 20 per cent of their teaching staff). In addition, schools
were required to find space on the timetable for the new government curriculum policies. It was,
therefore, not surprising to find that by 1996, approximately 50 per cent of Victorian government
secondary schools had reduced or discontinued their classroom music program. Another large number
of schools believed that this would be necessary in a year or so following their full implementation of
the compulsory increased time allocation for LOTE, sport, and physical education (Lierse, 1999).
Consequently, curriculum planning committee meetings at schools became, and still are, a battlefield,
with subject coordinators fighting for their subject areas and time on the timetable. The process of
school based management also introduced as part of the Schools of the Future reform was found to
greatly disadvantage music programs. A profile of the staffing and provision of music programs
revealed in the 1995/6 study (Lierse, 1999) shows the degree of disadvantage and the vulnerability of
the classroom music component of this subject area. This study contains data on all aspects of music
programs in Victorian government secondary schools, both quantitative and qualitative. This
discussion, however, will focus only on the classroom music program. The instrumental music program
is quite another story.
An ineffective secondary classroom music program statewide
There are a limited number of secondary schools offering a meaningful and sequential classroom music
program. The actual provision of a generalist music education program in the majority of schools is
patchy and lacking sequence and breadth. 13 per cent of schools did not have a classroom music
program in 1996.
Nineteen per cent of these were in country regions.
Only 22 per cent of schools offered music as a core requirement in Year 7, and only 11 per cent in Year
8 for an entire school year. In many schools students only studied music for one term. In Year 8, the
situation worsens with a further 19 per cent of schools not offering the subject at all.
In many schools the time allocation for music was one period a week for one term.
A limited number of schools were found to have viable size classes at VCE level. These schools were
predominately the former music placement schools.
By Year ten, 39 per cent of schools in the State did not offer music as a subject with the figure of 74 &
75 per cent in two county regions.
Amount of time schools employ class music teachers
Employment opportunities for music teachers are restricted and this was shown to severely
disadvantage the effectiveness of the music department in the school.
Of the 243 schools who had a music program, 95 schools did not employ a full time music teacher.
Only 26 schools employed more than two music teachers with most of these schools having an
enrollment of over 1,000 students. The largest employer had a classroom music teaching allocation of
4.6 for its 1,120 students, with the next highest employer with a 3.5 allocation for its 1,400 students.
There were, however, a small number of schools with more than 1,000 students that had less than a full
time allotment for a class music teacher. Considering the conditions in which music teachers try and
develop music programs, the level of achievement by many teachers is remarkable.
However, the inadequate numbers of music teachers in government secondary schools is a serious
issue. The following responses from the survey of music teachers show some of the difficulties
encountered in trying to run an effective music program.

Music programs are not created in 20 or so periods a week in the classroom. Schools expect concerts,
performances, musicals etc, but do not allow for the time and energy needed to put these on in the
staffing allocation of the faculty. They (the teachers) end up with nervous breakdowns. Schools want to
haul you up to advertise the school, but do not support you properly.
I teach more hours, have larger class sizes and less preparation time. I am taking a year off without pay
because I am stressed and need a break.
We need a commitment from the school. There should not be a need to be constantly defending the
program from attacks. There is a constant fight for money and when one is outnumbered by other
faculties you have to go over the top of committees to make your voice heard.
Curriculum development is a waste of time if we have no time to teach it
The development of the Curriculum Standards Frameworks (CSF) was an attempt to provide some
framework and agreement on a suitable state-wide curriculum. Due to limitations placed on the time
given to music on the time-table, plus the fact that students entering Year 7 from primary schools have
in most cases had very little exposure to a music education, the possibility of offering students the
broad program of studies as developed by the CSF and achieving the outcome statements was reported
to be almost impossible in the majority of schools.
Data collected in the 1995/6 study showed that only five schools were in fact teaching all areas of the
CSF at each year level (Years 7 to 10). Comments from teachers included:
There is increasing pressure to teach all art forms, not just the traditional art and
music. This is usually put in words like – "All students should experience all the art forms during their
time at school".
Up to this year all Year 7 students studied music for one period a week. Students now study 4 different
Arts areas for a term each of three periods per week.
You can’t teach the CSF in 10 periods a year which is all the time allocated to each of my classes.
The need for a commitment to improve the provision of music education in schools
If the 1990s are to be remembered as a time of decline for the arts and music education in Australia as
economic rationalism and accountability became the dominant paradigm, it is hoped that the new
century will begin a new era where a new appreciation of the arts and music will emerge. It is clear that
we need more than curriculum reform. We desperately need a new philosophy of music education for
our government schools which values music and the arts. We also need to develop our own strategies
to improve students’ access with funding to provide teachers and resources. The model developed in
Great Britain could provide a starting point.
Redressing the decline in the creative and cultural education in Great Britain: A national strategy for
the promotion of creative and cultural education.
The developments in Great Britain and indeed the USA are encouraging. Interestingly, it was The
Times Newspaper that played an important part in leading a reaction to the decline of music education
in schools after surveying Head Teachers and National Orchestras in the U.K. It stated:
n our view, the teaching of arts and humanities on an equal basis with the existing "core" curriculum
must be reinstated. There is evidence that literacy and numeracy are best promoted through a broad and
balanced curriculum which includes, rather than excludes, the arts and humanities.
Supporting evidence was also published
Forty of the most disadvantaged primary schools with the best results in literacy were recently studied
by OFSTED. The common factor was that they had strong arts programs. HMI said: There is a positive
correlation between good provision/performance in the arts in school and high standards of
performance in literacy and numeracy according to ODSTED inspection statistics (NACCCE Report,
p.77).
The subsequent publication of the British report All Our Futures in 1999, like the former Australian
and Victorian reports (see below), reveals the problems facing music education, and provides lists of
recommendations for the enhancement of music education in schools to avoid the imminent crisis. It
concludes with a rationale for, and the formulation of a National Strategy for the promotion of creative
and cultural education. The difference is that it includes an Action plan with the result that there has
been a mass injection of funds for music education and the establishment of the National Foundation
for Youth Music using the National Lottery.
Recent data on music programs in Victorian Secondary Schools is available (Lierse, 1999). Up to now,
there been little interest in this data. A few questions are, however, being asked and I am encouraged to
believe that the tide may now be turning and that a renewed appreciation of the value of music
education is emerging. Now could be the right time to move if we are to succeed in reversing the
devastating deterioration of music programs in Victorian government secondary schools that took place
throughout the 1990s. The State Minister for education appears to be willing to listen. But do we need
the equivalent of a Steven Moneghetti to lead this reform?
References:
Action: Education, and the Arts, (1985). Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.
Arts Education, (1995). Report from the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communication, and Arts
Reference Committee: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Education and the Arts. (1977). Australian Schools Commission and Australia Council: Victorian
Report. Canberra: National Printing Service.
Lierse, A. (1999). The Effectiveness of Music Programs in Victorian Government Secondary Schools
1995 – 1996. Unpublished Doctoral thesis: Monash University; Clayton.
National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. (1999). All Our Futures.
Department for Education and Employment: Suffolk.
Ray, M. (1989). Report of the Music Education Committee of Review. Victoria: Ministry of Education.
Dr Anne Lierse is a classroom and instrumental music teacher at Melbourne High School. She has
taught at primary, secondary and Tertiary levels, is a former music coordinator of the Victorian music
specialist school, Blackburn High School, and has been involved in curriculum research and
development with the Board of Studies. Her doctoral research into the effectiveness of Music Programs
in Victorian government secondary schools covered all aspects of the current provision; evaluated the
effects of curriculum and school management reforms under School of the Future on music programs;
and identified the characteristics of the music programs and their effectiveness.