The research

The research has focused on the actors' educational ideologies which ultimately define the process of music education policy. The data to be gathered concerned the educational ideologies of the music curriculum, the music teachers and the students. Such a research design ‘employ[s] a cross-sectional rather than a single-level analysis by tracing policy formulation, struggle and response from within the state itself through to the various recipients of policy’, and is used in the type of research known as policy trajectory studies (Ball, Reference BALL1994: 26). Since the research focus was on the educational ideologies of all actors in their various contexts, from the decisions on curriculum formation to their practical application and reception in schools, the research design can be characterised as a form of trajectory study in the specific context of Cypriot music education. According to Taylor et al. (Reference TAYLOR, RIZVI, LINGARD and HENRY1997: 42) trajectory studies form the second category of policy research, which involves ‘elite studies of policy text production as the first stage in the research agenda [and they] thus follow a specific policy through the stages of gestation, the micropolitics inside the state involved in text production, and through case studies of the implementation of the policy into practice’ (for a review of other trajectory studies, see for example, Fitz, Halpin & Power, Reference FITZ, HALPIN and POWER1993; Whitty, Edwards & Gewirtz, Reference WHITTY, EDWARDS and GEWIRTZ1993).

The design of the present research as a trajectory study meant that the unearthing of the actors' educational ideologies would save the research from a simplistic understanding of music education policy as something that is imposed on music teachers and students by upper-level policy makers. On the contrary, education policy is construed as a complex process which involves conflicts ‘and mediations from various origins and points of initiation to points of implementation’ (Maguire & Ball, Reference BALL1994: 280). It is a process which is complex, rather fragmented and not linear for it involves the distinct and often opposing values of key actors (Ball, Reference BALL1994; Taylor et al., Reference TAYLOR, RIZVI, LINGARD and HENRY1997). Since the process of music education policy was construed as incoherent and conflicting, it was not expected that educational ideologies would reach the bottom level of curriculum contexts while remaining unaltered. It is for this reason that the present research looked at the possible areas where the actors might interconnect with each other.

In view of collecting data that would allow an analysis of the educational ideologies prescribed by the official music curriculum and subsequently enable a comparison with the educational ideologies produced by music teachers and students, I decided to gather data from the official music curriculum for the 1^st Grade (age 15–16) of the upper secondary school, known as Eniaio Lykeio (Unified Lyceum). Second, questionnaires were sent out to all music teachers who have taught music in the 1^st Grade to look at how they define the music curriculum in terms of educational ideologies. Of the 65 questionnaires that were sent, 34 were returned. Finally, six group interviews were conducted with students for the same purpose.

It is not my intention to claim that the research can automatically be generalised to other social or educational systems in other parts of the world. Rather, I am aiming at a ‘thick description’ that aims to capture the complexities of music education construction in Cyprus through value systems, and that can ‘make contact with the more implicit and informal understanding held by readers who are able to see parallels with the situation in which they work or otherwise have knowledge about’ (Robson, Reference ROBSON1993: 73). Yin (Reference YIN1994) suggests that generalisation to a ‘broader theory’ is valid when outcomes of research may contribute knowledge in their own right to existing theoretical models. As such, the particular case of music education in Cyprus is of value and relevance in its own right; moreover, it gives rise to issues that can be compared and contrasted with situations in other times and places.

How positivist research conceptualises and evaluates research according to a notion of empirical correctness is not at issue here; rather, I seek validity through a ‘humanistic validity-seeking’ methodology (Campbell, in foreword to Yin, Reference YIN1994), and in relation to criteria such as ‘plausibility or credibility’, ‘coherence’ and ‘intention’, and ‘relevance’ (Hammersley, Reference HAMMERSLEY1992). These authors suggest that the appropriate criteria of validity are ‘fairness’, ‘educative authenticity’, ‘catalytic authenticity’ and ‘empowerment’. In addition, some authors argue that research can be considered valid to the extent that all participants' views are given equal voice, and that the research has at least the capacity to enhance participants' understanding of each others' viewpoints.

Education policy approaches

But how is education policy to be researched? In North America and Britain during the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s, policy was apprehended as a continuum of fixed stages leading to successful policy outcomes if managers achieved the right conditions for successful implementation (Cerych & Sabatier, Reference CERYCH and SABATIER1986). This ‘top-down’ implementation assumes that unity and shared vision can and should be established within an educational institution (Beckhard & Pritchard, Reference BECKHARD and PRITCHARD1992). This approach assumes that there is a consensus between the actors involved in music education on the educational ideologies that it should reflect. The key actor in this conception of a centrally controlled activity is thought to be the state, its competent official agencies and the official documents produced; in the case of the present research, the music curriculum is considered to determine music education practice. This approach views the actors at lower levels, i.e. music teachers and students, as being incapable of having an impact on the trajectory of music education policy since the upper-level actors have exclusive authority to direct policy-making. In this view, the process of music education policy is conceived as an uncontested and straightforward activity, directed by the music curriculum which maintains consistency between the actors involved.

However, throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, the aforementioned linear, ‘logical’, ‘cause-effect’ approach was attacked by researchers who argued that, not only can no ‘recipes’ ensure successful implementation, but also that this approach ignores the conflicting value systems of the actors and agencies involved in education policy (Barret & Fudge, Reference BARRET and FUDGE1981). It should be added that, in practice, the involved values are not only those of policy makers and policy implementers but also those of policy-receivers – i.e. the students – and other actors. Therefore, multiple musical values exist within curriculum contexts, not only resisting but more importantly enacting policy-making; and constituting education policy as dynamic, multilayered, complex and contested, which is influenced by temporal social, economic and cultural factors (Ball, Reference BALL1990). In the approach adopted here, the powerful role of music teachers and students is highlighted and music education is seen as a ‘bottom-up’ phenomenon. As Deem and Davies (Reference DEEM and DAVIES1991) point out ‘we contend that a small number of people can, in circumstances [. . .], influence the direction of educational policy implementation, irrespective of the intentions of the legislators and politicians’ (Deem & Davies, Reference DEEM and DAVIES1991: 154). Thus, in this approach the role of a centrally imposed music curriculum is underestimated, and what seems to define music education are the value systems of music teachers and students.

More recently, during the 1980s and 1990s, research attempted to overcome this duality by synthesising the ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches. For this approach, ‘mutual adaptation’ and a consensual vision of top-level actors' as the bottom-level actors' values, with the latter being seriously considered in the policy-making agenda, were developed (Hall, Reference HALL, Carter and O'Neill1995). Thus, all the actors become ‘partners’ in policy-making and implementation. This ‘partnership’ might involve researchers, administrators, teachers, students and parents all sharing the same vision, and having a sense of ownership of education policy (Fullan, Reference FULLAN1993). Fullan suggests that the development of their mutual understanding is achieved through constant dialogue and negotiations between collaborative actors (Fullan, Reference FULLAN1999). This partnership approach takes into account the educational ideologies of all actors since it considers the viewpoints of all in order to celebrate the multiple value systems of all actors (Silcock & Brundrett, 2001: 44).

Which of these three trajectories does music education policy follow in Cyprus? Are the educational ideologies of the music curriculum in agreement with those of music teachers and students?

The nature of education policy

The aforementioned three approaches to education policy demonstrate its dynamic trajectory. Saunders (Reference SAUNDERS and Hopkins1986) compares policy trajectory to a staircase:

Another widely used definition of education policy is Ball's understanding of ‘both as text and action, words and deeds; it is what is enacted as well as what is intended. Policies are always incomplete insofar as they relate to or map on to the “wild profusion” of local practice’ (Ball, Reference BALL1994: 10).

These two definitions view policy's nature as twofold: policy as text and concurrently policy as action. Policy as text is an official specification, with regulations and actions that determine educational procedures which ought to be followed in order to bring about the desired outcomes. This is a clear way of understanding music education policy as it treats it – simply – as a music curriculum, in contrast with the second one, which treats it as a continuous and contested process.

It should not be inferred from my remarks that the present research looked primarily at the multiple concurrent trajectories: multiple actors and contexts (the music curriculum, teachers, students), positioned in multiple action centres (ministry, school, class), producing multiple curriculum contexts (curriculum formation, implementation and reception).

So far, the theoretical framework of the present research was conceptualised from a sociological perspective on education policy, insofar as the education policy process is seen as a complex process and not as an official policy text. As a process, it accommodates the distinct values of the actors involved and, thus, it is very likely that it will become fragmented. At this point, I move on to unearth the educational ideologies that animate the music curriculum of the 1^st Grade in the Unified Lyceum in Cyprus, and those educational ideologies that are promoted by music teachers and students. This will help us conceptualise how music education is defined ideologically in its trajectory across the education policy process.

Educational ideologies in the music education policy process

In 2000, the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) published all the subject curricula for the 1^st Grade in one volume. The music curriculum for the 1^st Grade (MoEC, 2000: 364), which is part of the common core of the Eniaio Lykeio, provides teachers with less than half a page of information about the structure of the music curriculum, its scope and emphasis. It reads as follows:

Under the subtitle ‘Directions on the Teaching Content’ the curriculum then states that the content is divided into four units of 3–4 topics, and that teachers must include in their teaching at least eight topics from these four units, i.e. two topics from each unit. Unit A covers topics on Ancient Greek music, Byzantine music, Cyprus traditional music, Greek traditional music and World musics; Unit B includes Renaissance music, Baroque music, Classicism and Romanticism; Unit C includes Trends of the 20^th century (e.g. impressionism, symbolism, expressionism, etc); and Unit D includes National – Eptanisian School – Contemporary Greek music, Rembetiko, Light, Art Greek song and Contemporary Cypriot music. The music curriculum then follows the structure described above and offers 13 topics with suggestions on theoretical information and activities, applications of technology and instrumentation, and cross-curricular links.

According to its aims, this music curriculum combines theory with practice and activities, and aims to develop students' skills, critical thinking, analytico-synthetic ability, co-relation and generalisation, as well as cognitive and meta-cognitive skills. Clearly, the music curriculum places emphasis on the students' musical experiences and skills, with some musical knowledge. The aims of the music curriculum suggest that since it places the students at the centre of the teaching process, for they are ‘no longer regarded as a passive receptacle to be filled with curriculum content’, progressivism is indicated as the educational ideology that is being promoted (Eisner, Reference EISNER and Jackson1992: 312).

However, the above music curriculum does not leave room for music teachers to co-operate with students in order to define the content of the music curriculum. Instead, it is the Ministry of Education which defines this context of the curriculum formation. It is indeed important to note that students' preferences and musical cultures are neglected; popular music is not included in the music curriculum content. In a progressive curriculum, decisions on the content are taken jointly by the teacher and the student. Additionally, although teaching periods for each topic are not indicated, the fact that music teachers have to cover eight topics on four specific units is a limitation to their autonomy. Also, curriculum planning is left to the teacher with no participation by the students. It appears that, in the case of the Cypriot curriculum, upper-level actors construct the music curriculum and expect music teachers to implement it and students to receive it. Cypriot music teachers have a subsidiary role while students have no role at all. It can be argued that although, according to its aims, the official music curriculum attempts to put forward a progressive music education, its traditional form of development hinders it from being truly progressive.

Apparently, in the context of curriculum formation, education policy is construed as a continuum of fixed stages which assumes that music teachers are to implement the officially imposed music curriculum on passive students. These features denote a top-down education policy approach. Music education policy is understood as a text, an uncontested activity, and not as an action in which all actors are its agents.

Next, I move on to unearth the educational ideologies of music teachers. Their responses offered a great variety of educational ideologies in the Cypriot music education scene. Most significant were their values for aesthetic music education in relation to students' competence in critical listening, choice of ‘worthy’ music genres and cultivation of a well-rounded personality. I cite some representative quotes:

It is important to note the music teachers' insistence that they should help students decide which works are of a certain standard or not, and make the correct choices between ‘high quality’ and ‘low quality’ musical works. An illustrative answer affirms:

Teachers gave slightly fewer accounts of students' musical experiences and expressions of personal feelings. But there were frequent comments about students' co-operation and discipline, communication and personal satisfaction. Less numerous were the testimonies on students' enhanced musical skills. Most of the comments in this category referred to reading and writing skills, listening and singing, and ignored other more demanding musical competencies such as composing and improvising. A point worth making is that the music teachers' responses which referred to musical skills were still related to aesthetic music education: ‘music offers each and every student the aesthetic enjoyment of sound through performing, composing, listening and singing’ (Teacher 31).

Last, the smallest number of answers concerned knowledge of existing music genres, which were considered to be valuable for students. This was a reference to a musical canon on the part of the music teachers, denoting, once more, aesthetic music education. Below are some examples of this view:

It can be therefore assumed that in the context of curriculum implementation, music teachers seek to pursue music education as aesthetic education, following a traditional educational ideology, through musical activities. This is in contrast to the official music curriculum, which does not include aesthetic music education amongst its priorities.

Music teachers indicated that the existing educational ideologies lack agreement with and relevance to the official music curriculum. The conflicting educational ideologies of the music teachers not only resist the official music curriculum but more importantly enact their own music education policy, i.e. music education as aesthetic education. The findings suggest that distinct educational ideologies exist in the trajectory of music education policy causing a fragmentation. Stigmas of fragmentation are apparent, indicating once more that education policy is not a cause-effect activity, a top-down and linear process. In short, music teachers cause a fragmentation to the trajectory of music education policy, ignoring and abandoning the educational ideology imposed by the official music curriculum.

Finally, I sought to investigate the educational ideologies of students, assumed to be powerful agents within their contexts. They stated that what they expected from music lessons was a little basic musical knowledge about familiar music genres, and, most importantly, enjoyment, relaxation and entertainment. Here is a typical response to my question about their expectations of school music education:

Here, music is viewed as the subject that should offer escape from the stress of other curriculum subjects. For students, the music curriculum ought to be classroom-led on the basis of their needs and desires. They strongly pointed out that their primary preference is popular music and placed western classical music at a lower level. As already stated, popular music is not included in the official music curriculum for the 1^st Grade, but music teachers do include this genre in their music curriculum in response to their students' preferences. It must be noted that popular music is fully accepted by the Ministry since in a seminar for secondary school teachers, the music inspector distributed Greek translations of excerpts from Lucy Green's (Reference GREEN2001) book, How Popular Musicians Learn. The students demanded a music education that affirms their own musical values and their strong preference for popular music. Thus, it can be argued that students might also demand a progressive music curriculum for as Ross (Reference ROSS2000: 138) writes, contemporary progressive education ‘should take into account the personal interests, motivations and aptitudes of the child’. Students' educational ideologies do not appear to be in line with the official music curriculum nor with those of the music teachers, resulting once more in a fragmentation of the education policy process.

In terms of educational ideologies, it appears that policy actors have distinct aspirations which lack consistency. In brief, the educational ideologies of the various actors are dissonant. The music curriculum promotes progressive policies in its aims but not in its development, music teachers largely promote traditionalism and music education as aesthetic education and students, most likely, call for a progressive music education according to their personal musical values, i.e. popular music.

To sum up, the research has established that the educational ideologies which exist in the music education trajectory are quite distinct. Within this trajectory from policy to practice, educational ideologies were transformed or ignored. The research suggests that the trajectory of Cypriot music education policy process is indeed fragmented, complex and conflicting, hosting the opposing values of its actors.

Implications and conclusions

Any genuine research into music education policy needs to unearth the actors' value systems. All actors are, to some extent, policy makers; even students have a potential influence on policy-making. Music education is a crucial matter for all actors, and not just those at upper levels such as the state and its bureaucrats.

To report that the received music curriculum is distant from the respective official music curriculum is not news, and does not make a contribution to knowledge in music education research. The major issue here is to construe music education as a polydynamic process and not a linear one. To put it bluntly, it would be naïve to expect educational ideologies, and music education policy and curriculum in general, to reach the bottom level of curriculum contexts unaltered. To avoid such misconceptions, in future we need recourse to education policy studies, curriculum studies and the sociology of music education, all of which will enrich the literature of music education, offering in-depth insights from general education.

A consensus between the educational ideologies of the different actors needs to be attained so that the music curriculum can become meaningful to all. Unity in values needs to be achieved for all actors enact music education policy. The official music curriculum, music teachers and even students have a right of ownership of music education policy. The implementation of a music curriculum is not merely a top-down process, but is constantly changing. Educational ideologies in practice are never as clear and definite as they might appear in policy texts. Attention needs to be paid to all actors' values regarding educational ideologies, for they guide the direction of the process of music education policy. The ‘reality’ of music education appears to be made up of contradictory value systems deriving from the vantage points of multiple actors. Thus, music education involves many contradictory value systems and practices in distinct curriculum contexts.

The research findings suggest that to make sense of music education policy one should construe it as a polydynamic process. Music education policy appears to be so much more than a policy text (e.g. an official music curriculum) which specifies the educational goals, pedagogies and desired outcomes of a policy. It is in essence a polydynamic process, with multiple interfering policy trajectories and points of origin. More specifically, music education policy is polyglot, indicating the voices of different actors (e.g. music teachers, students); polycentric, for having many arenas of struggles and compromises (e.g. ministry, school, class); and polymorphic, for it moves to several curriculum contexts (e.g. curriculum formation, curriculum implementation and curriculum reception). All these voices, arenas and curriculum contexts have equal significance and can cause a fragmentation of the music education policy process. Thus, all actors' values need to be sought and respected. Dialogues between each other need to be established so that music education policy is shared in a consensual trajectory.

This research addresses the need for a change in our perspective of making sense of music education policy. Further illuminating research remains to be conducted in the border territory between education policy and music education.