In music education, there is much talk of the requirement to understand pipelines, for more ‘joined up’ thinking and the need to provide accessible and affordable progression routes. These related ideas have loomed large in discussions around the development of the second National Plan for Music Education (NPME2), which was titled ‘The Power of Music to Change Lives’ (DfE, 2022). In the present article, we explore notions of what such a joining-up might look like and the implications for inclusive practice, shown through a novel theoretical model.
Amongst the many and much debated proposals of NPME2, including changes to day-to-day operations and funding of music education in many parts of England, it set out concretely a different vision for music education. In it, music education is described as an ‘ecosystem’, a term totally absent from the NPME1 (DfE, 2011). This new terminology appears three times in NPME2,Footnote 1 twice in the introduction and once in the opening paragraphs of Chapter 3. Its use in Chapter 3 connects the idea of music education to talent development, serving the wider music industry as below:
There is no one way to develop a young person’s talent and interest, not least because of the diversity of genres, roles and settings where music is now made or supported, and the range of careers it can support. Theatres and TV studios need sound technicians; music artists need marketing managers; radio stations need DJs; global music companies need lawyers and accountants. The industry is a wide ecosystem that relies on a robust supply of talent across a range of roles and into a range of employment (DfE, 2022, p. 61).
The concept of an ecosystem establishes an important connection between a musical education and preparation for the cultural and creative industries sector, grounded in a neoliberal-industrial view of cultural education that is justified through its measurable economic potentials, rather than learner-centric developmental goals (inter alia Springer, Reference SPRINGER, Kuus and Sharp2013; Mayo, Reference MAYO2015; Ball, Reference BALL2021; Young, Reference YOUNG2023). The relative absence of learner-centric thinking here represents significant issues when an inclusive practice lens is applied, something that we return to later.
As for the other two references to an ‘ecosystem’, NPME2 paints a picture of a wide range of different organisations working closely with schools to deliver music education for our children and young people, responding to local needs and helping to create joined up progression routes to enable all young people to succeed. Somewhat counter to this aspirational policy vision, much current discourse in music education identifies a postcode lottery determining access to all sorts of provision (inter alia Whittaker et al., Reference WHITTAKER, KINSELLA and FAUTLEY2019; Savage, Reference SAVAGE2021a). Formal qualifications offer the ability to track this at individual school level, but it is widely understood that some localities are far better served by a range of musical activities than others (APPG Music Education, 2019; Whittaker & Fautley, Reference WHITTAKER and FAUTLEY2021; Gardiner, Reference GARDINER2025). This is particularly important because whilst there may be relative stability or small declines in overall uptake of some qualifications, the rates of change are not the same everywhere. In some local authorities, there are not any examination centres entering young people for formal qualifications in music. The reasons behind this are complex, but if a qualification is not offered, then a young musician is not able to choose it. If the nearest school offering a music qualification, or a specific kind of music qualification appropriate to a learner’s interests is some distance away, or if this operates on a fee-paying basis, this presents additional challenges and barriers for this young musician, further entrenching socioeconomic inequity.
There are, of course, numerous examples of positive impacts and transformational interventions to mitigate these challenges, which are not represented in official qualifications datasets. For example, the work of Youth Music’s Exchanging Notes projects demonstrated wider musical and non-musical beneficial outcomes that would not feature in a music qualifications dataset (Kinsella et al., Reference KINSELLA, FAUTLEY and WHITTAKER2019). Similarly, the emergent Shireland CBSO Academy is placing music at the heart of an educational experience for large numbers of young people in Sandwell, one of the most deprived local authorities in England (Murray, Reference MURRAY2025), with the aspiration that all pupils take a music GCSE. In London, a long-running project in the form of Newham’s Music Enrichment Programme (Daubney & Bergin, Reference DAUBNEY and BERGIN2024) describes thinking about, planning, leading and evaluating music education ‘in-the-round’. Such initiatives, often run by specialist organisations or local charities, are frequently highlighted as exceptions that diminish the validity of any claims of a wider malaise. These kinds of initiative working with underserved communities are a vital and vibrant source of music education provision, undertaking powerful and meaningful musical development work that is rightly celebrated. Fundamentally, however, it must be acknowledged there are systemic and engrained barriers that continue to exist; individual initiatives are helpful, but they do not constitute a systemic solution. Without diminishing the importance of this work, exceptions do not confirm the rule, nor do they enable us to talk about the ecosystem of music education systemically. Henley & Barton (Reference HENLEY and BARTON2022) identified ‘Pupil and participant voice and involvement’ as a recurrent issue, along with six further themes which included ‘Collaboration’, ‘Transition points’ and ‘Resourcing’ (p. 206). All of these have significant implications in representing the ecosystem of music.
While these similar barriers are encountered and evidence long-standing issues, internal arguments around notions of quality and relevance rage, and positionalities arguably become more entrenched. Debates within a field are the lifeblood and vitality of reflective work, helping to drive practice forward and prevent stagnation. But, to those outside the sector, or those with vested interests in particular models of education, these important discussions may be mistaken for conflict, confusion and a lack of coherence. As a focus group participant in Henley & Barton (Reference HENLEY and BARTON2022) puts it, ‘There is an opinion that the DfE do not know who to talk to about music education, and there needs to be a central point of contact for those seeking music education information’ (Henley & Barton, Reference HENLEY and BARTON2022, p. 210). We all agree that music education is important, but often have different perspectives on what that looks or sounds like and what young people find most beneficial.
Of course, all those working in music education aspire to work in the most effective ways to support musical learning, and there are numerous examples of partnerships contributing positively to young people’s lives (inter alia Christopherson & Kenny, Reference CHRISTOPHERSON, KENNY, Christopherson and Kenny2018; Kinsella et al., Reference KINSELLA, FAUTLEY and WHITTAKER2019, Reference KINSELLA, FAUTLEY and WHITTAKER2022, Reference KINSELLA, NENADIC and MACGREGOR2023a). In the current environment, it is very challenging to plan for the long term, with much activity being organised around short-term projects, whose existence relies almost entirely on a combination of state, charitable and philanthropic funding. Developing musical skills takes a long time that far exceeds the timeframe of a 6-month project, or even a 3-year funding cycle.
NPME2 sets out a vision for a dynamic sector with many participants to address these longstanding issues and support equality and equity opportunity. The following introductory vision statement from NPME2 is illustrative of this:
Reading all three chapters will support readers to build a stronger understanding of the various partners and opportunities that make up our rich music education ecosystem, and how building ever stronger links between them will help achieve our vision for children and young people. (DfE, 2022, p. 9)
The vision is clear. A rich music education is made up of a variety of partners working together. Combining expertise can realise these policy ambitions. No single body or entity can provide for all musical needs. Ecosystems thinking may fix this. But what does this sector actually look like in practice? There are so many constituent parts to the music education sector that blur boundaries between in-school and out-of-school activity, as well as formal, non-formal, social action and community-based provision, that understanding, or even trying to represent this totality becomes a challenge. Locating domains of activity, distinctiveness, competition and duplication, and how they figure in various localities is a real challenge at a systems level. And that is from the perspective of researchers and practitioners working in the field. When the navigability of these diverse pathways is considered from the perspective of a young person and their family, it is nigh on impossible to have a clear sense of how music education is organised. Within this broader ecosystem of music education across the country, there are further complexities at local levels, with the new Music Hubs and Hub Lead Organisations being tasked with building ‘a sustainable local ‘eco-system’ for music education, through partnerships, with progression, access and inclusion central to their work’. (DfE, 2022, p. 5, bold emphasis in original). How might these local ecosystems interact with a sector-wide ecosystem? How would a young person be able to access different parts of this ecosystem, or move through its progression routes? Indeed, what does the music education ecosystem look like? And what does it mean for inclusion?
Towards a modelling of English music education ecosystem
This paper sets out an initial model that emerged from a body of research completed by the Birmingham Music Education Research Group over nearly a decade. Distributed across around 40 projects, the authors listed here (and the wider BMERG teamFootnote 2) have conducted interviews and focus groups with at least 300 young people and music educators (inter alia Kinsella et al., Reference KINSELLA, FAUTLEY and WHITTAKER2019; Whittaker, Reference WHITTAKER2021; Anderson et al., Reference ANDERSON, FAUTLEY, NENADIC and KINSELLA2024a), followed trends in national qualifications data, as well as analysed the national Music Education Hub data return (Fautley & Whittaker, Reference FAUTLEY and WHITTAKER2017, Reference FAUTLEY and WHITTAKER2018, Reference FAUTLEY and WHITTAKER2019). Through a process of ongoing reflective dialogue on recurrent themes across these projects, the authors jointly and severally identified consistencies about the importance of different individuals and stakeholder groups to young musicians and the complexity of the system that was described and experienced. These recurrences were then thematised through an iterative discursive process, whereby the differing positions of stakeholders were identified, and placed in proximity to a hypothetical young musician, with a Bronfenbrenner-style eco-structure (Reference BRONFENBRENNER1979) model in mind. The ecosystem model that follows later in this paper is the result of these mappings.
The purpose of the proposed model is to prompt a ‘zooming out’ from the specificities and intricacies of difference at hyper-local levels to look at possible wider commonalities of experience that could be framed as an ecosystem. Through this, we hope to spark a provocative conversation about the ecosystem of music education, the different layers and positions within it and how these different layers might be encountered (and moved through) by the young people that music educators want to support. The discussion here focuses on England, but the theoretical principles have applicability to other national contexts, potentially enabling us to better understand similarities and differences across our international field. Looking at music education ecosystems from a systems perspective could be transformative.
Much discussion around the organisation of activity is in line with the prominence of Music Hubs or specific flagship projects, but young people do not experience or conceptualise their music education journey in the same way. The ‘project’ mindset, if we can call it that, is not how everyone involved sees it. Ultimately, families and young people engage with the provision that they are offered or are able to access, often without a specific end goal in mind beyond progressing musically. They may not know, or even need to know, what the programme is called, who funds it, or how it fits within a wider local music education context.
In this paper, we set out the groundwork underpinning this initial modelling, followed by a series of responses from colleagues to identify shortcomings and spaces for refinement. The authors of this paper hope that this model is taken as an indication of how the ecosystem could be perceived from the perspective of a young person, rather than an aspirational notion of how such an ecosystem could best support musical learning. In that sense, it falls on the ‘is’ side of Hume’s (1739/40) ‘is/ought’ dichotomy. This paper is, in essence, a proposal to spark debate and a conceptual tool to help think through systemic challenges, consider multiple perspectives and, we hope, envision new ways of working. The authors actively encourage revision and welcome critique. As we argue in the concluding remarks, the process of formulating and presenting these ideas forces all of us to consider, perhaps even confront, some challenging questions that are often overlooked.
Formulating the model
For the last decade, the Birmingham Music Education Research Group team has been involved in a wide range of research partnerships, ranging from small evaluation projects funded by individual charities or independent academic research to analysing the underpinning data for the national Music Education Hub data return (inter alia. Fautley et al., Reference FAUTLEY, KINSELLA and WHITTAKER2017; Fautley & Whittaker, Reference FAUTLEY and WHITTAKER2019; Kinsella et al., Reference KINSELLA, FAUTLEY and WHITTAKER2019; Whittaker et al., Reference WHITTAKER, KINSELLA and FAUTLEY2019; Whittaker, Reference WHITTAKER2021; Kinsella et al., Reference KINSELLA, FAUTLEY and WHITTAKER2022). As researchers, our role has been to research with partners, enabling a collaborative model of working that foregrounds the voices of young people. Through this work, the BMERG team has researched in partnership with key stakeholders in the sector and, importantly, young people and their families, as well as analysed national music education data, both quantitative and qualitative, that sit behind the headline figures quoted in UK Parliament. These encounters have led to the gathering of numerous perceptions and experiences, and as researchers, these have been shared within the context of individual projects.
Through an iterative discussion model between researchers, the research team co-developed this initial theoretical model as a conceptual tool to help identify commonalities across our findings, shared experiences and areas of persistent challenge. This emerged from reflecting on our research reports and other publications to identify recurrent issues, many of which centred around the significant challenge in navigating complex progression routes. We then conducted informal triangulating conversations with key stakeholders and shared an early version of this model at a professional conference. Building on feedback at each of these stages, the proposed model was refined to arrive at its current iteration. As Kapiszewski et al. note, iterating can enable ‘sparks and spirals of intellectual discovery’ (Reference KAPISZEWSKI, MACLEAN and READ2022, 649). That is exactly what happened here.
Much discourse around music education as a system is focused on ‘governance’ by policies, plans and structures (inter alia Bath et al., Reference BATH, DAUBNEY, MACKRILL and SPRUCE2020; Savage, Reference SAVAGE2021). Our proposal here flips this, placing the young person at the centre of this experience, using this to visualise the ecosystem and consider the relative proximity and interaction of different elements with a young person. Importantly, this model emerged from conversations with young people and organisations, across multiple projects, who told us that this how the system is. This is crucial; the model here is not a representation of how the sector should be organised, rather that this is how it has been experienced in general terms.
The ecosystem model we share here (Figure 1) draws on aspects of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Reference BRONFENBRENNER1979), placing an individual – in the present case a young musician – at the centre and considering the different layers of influence on development. As Bronfenbrenner describes it:
The ecological environment is conceived topologically as a nested arrangement of concentric structures, each contained within the next. These structures are referred to as the micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems. (Bronfenbrenner, Reference BRONFENBRENNER1979, p. 22)
Proposed modelling of the music education ecosystem.
Bronfenbrenner’s model has been used in music education research to examine musical influences and psychological impacts (inter alia Ilari, Reference ILARI2018; Durbin, Reference DURBIN2024), but, to our knowledge, it has not been used as a means to consider the ecosystem of music education delivery in England that interacts with a young person. Bronfenbrenner’s approach helps to support the organisation of information relating to an individual and their environment that takes account of a sense of interconnectedness and considers this as a dynamic to understand growth and progress:
Human development is the process through which the growing person acquires a more extended differentiated, and valid conception of the ecological environment, and becomes motivated and able to engage in activities that reveal the properties of, sustain, or restructure that environment at levels of similar or greater complexity in form and content (Bronfenbrenner, Reference BRONFENBRENNER1979, p. 29).
Such an environment is, as the NPME2 sets out, a key element for supporting a rich musical education for a developing young musician, building greater complexity into their interactions with the musical ecosystem around them.
Our adaptation uses the concentric circle formation to represent the spheres of influence and proximity to a young person to show the important role that a small number of key individuals around a young person play in their musical development. Each of the concentric layers represents an ecosystem level, representing the different interactions between settings and contexts, as well as the external influences that govern these. These are, in essence, the filters or gatekeepers that a young person may have to work through in order to access different kinds of musical provision. All have the potential to interact with, and impact upon, a young person’s choices and opportunities at different points. Those placed closer to the centre of the ecosystem are entities with which a young person is likely to have frequent contact in their daily lives. The text boxes on either side of these circles represent key contextual and policy factors that frame elements of the ecosystem, as well as persistent barriers. Wider considerations that sit across these contextual factors and barriers are located as coloured circles on the periphery of the main concentric set, representing the ways these filter through all levels of this ecosystem.
Before exploring Figure 1 in more detail, it is important to set out some framing issues. There are clearly some significant limitations inherent here, not least because of the need to distil dynamic complexity to rather more static generality. Clearly, some stakeholder groups and types of organisations cross multiple layers in this diagram, and there will be exceptions to the broad classifications here. Different local contexts will organise or describe the same activities and stakeholder groups differently, and the authors recognise this as a limitation of the model offered. For example, Wider Opportunities or WCET, a whole-class instrumental learning scheme piloted during the 1997–2010 Labour Government (Savage, Reference SAVAGE2021b), has at least 20 different names across the country (Fautley et al., Reference FAUTLEY, KINSELLA and WHITTAKER2017, pp. 12–13). Amongst these, some programmes with the same name last for just 6 weeks, others an entire academic year; some are offered free of charge to schools and others are delivered at a variable cost, or as part of wider package offerings. Whilst these programmes may serve similar functions, emerge from particular policy positions or may deploy similar pedagogical models, their actualisation is varied. Such differences significantly change the experiences of a young person. Some programmes permit children to choose their own instrument, some work in intensive blocks and others run on a weekly basis. These may be conceptualised either as standalone blocks or as the entry point into a structured progression route. The seemingly infinite variety in just this one type of provision is indicative of complexity and challenge to representing even one strand of the music education sector. However, rather than retreat from this challenge of representing the music education sector, we put forward here an initial proposal as a way to address these problems head-on.
The process of discussing the relative disadvantages and shortcomings of a model can be a helpful step to deepening understanding and facilitating theorisation (see, for example, Healy, Reference HEALY2017). Having a model that facilitates the dismantling of some of the conceptual complexity shrouded in intricacy, we hope, will enable the music education community of scholarship and practice to think about the connectivities across different kinds of provision. It can help move towards a system-based understanding of the music education ecosystem that could unlock a more holistic understanding of this field. As a starting point, we offer two provocations, one on the challenge of inclusion and the other on the place of music in mainstream schools, and how these interact with the model proposed is shown in Figure 1.
Provocation 1: the challenge of inclusion for young people with a disability in the ecosystem
The ecosystem model provides a framework to examine the barriers and opportunities for young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). Each layer of the ecosystem, from national policies to local contexts, influences how SEND learners experience education and access support. However, as the model highlights, there are significant disconnections and gaps that hinder the musical progress of SEND learners. These challenges require systemic, pedagogical, and cultural shifts to be addressed effectively.
Policy and systemic gaps
One of the primary challenges for young people with SEND is the inability of current policy frameworks to fully address their needs. Schmidt (Reference SCHMIDT2017) argues that while education policies are often well-intentioned, they frequently perpetuate systemic inequities. Similarly, Spruce et al. (Reference SPRUCE, Philpott and Spruce2012) notes that initiatives aimed at promoting student voice can inadvertently reinforce dominant cultural paradigms, silencing diverse perspectives. Abril & Gault (Reference ABRIL and GAULT2008) critique this as a one-size-fits-all approach that privileges certain learners while excluding others, thereby undermining equitable outcomes.
Furthermore, the governance of music education often fails to incorporate the lived realities of SEND learners. As Ball (Reference BALL2009) highlights, policies tend to focus on performance metrics and standardised approaches that overlook the nuanced needs of marginalized groups. Addressing these gaps requires a multidirectional framework (Schmidt, Reference SCHMIDT2017), enabling stakeholders – including policymakers, educators and families – to collaboratively shape inclusive practices that resonate with the diverse experiences of learners. For example, policies could mandate the inclusion of accessible technologies and adaptive instruments to bridge gaps in participation. The ecosystem model presents these gaps in stark relief, highlighting the potential transformational power held by just a handful of individuals.
Teacher training and the impact on SEND learners
A barrier to inclusion is the dominance of the medical model of disability within education systems. As outlined by Oliver (Reference OLIVER1990), the medical model views disability as an individual deficit to be fixed, rather than a social construct shaped by environmental and systemic barriers. This mindset often infiltrates teacher training programmes, leaving educators ill-equipped to adopt inclusive practices. Without exposure to the social model of disability, those supporting a young person may unintentionally perpetuate exclusionary practices that focus on limitations rather than potential. For instance, educators might prioritise traditional assessment methods over more flexible approaches that better accommodate diverse learners. Ball (Reference BALL2013) critiques this type of systemic failure, describing it as part of a broader policy discourse that privileges dominant ideologies while sidelining marginalized perspectives.
Transforming policy into practice requires a well-prepared and reflective workforce capable of implementing inclusive approaches effectively, and one that can move flexibly between different areas of the ecosystem, rather than remain fixed in one layer. Florian & Rouse (Reference FLORIAN and ROUSE2009) emphasize that inclusive education depends on teachers’ ability to adapt pedagogy to accommodate all learners. However, specialised training in SEND provision, particularly within music education, remains limited. Findings from Uprising (Kinsella et al., Reference KINSELLA, ANDERSON and MACGREGOR2023b), a three-year in-service programme for music service teachers, highlight the potential of evidence-based, practical training opportunities. One teacher reflected:
We’ve had some really good training sessions this year. With evidence behind it, but also practical things you can take straight back into your sessions. Having that knowledge and concrete evidence has been quite powerful.
Specific training, on diverse learning needs such as trauma, PMLD, and adapted instruments, enabled teachers to move beyond tokenistic accommodations and begin to consider more inclusive pedagogies. However, in addition to attitudinal barriers, structural challenges persist within music education. The rigid pathways and limited representation of disabled musicians exacerbate accessibility issues. As another teacher from Uprising noted:
I think there are two elements to accessibility in music that need to change—attitudes and physical access. There aren’t many disabled classical musicians. We need more role models. Things are changing, but we still have a long way to go to change people’s attitudes.
This sentiment underscores the need for cultural shifts that challenge traditional structures and amplify the visibility of disabled role models within the music ecosystem. Additionally, infrastructure modifications such as providing accessible rehearsal spaces and adaptive instruments are crucial for enabling participation.
Anticipatory practices: a care-based pedagogical approach
A critical element of this shift is anticipatory practice, proactively identifying and addressing barriers before they hinder participation. The AHRC Music and Disability Provocation Document (Kinsella, Reference KINSELLA2024), funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, brought together key stakeholders to share insights and evidence. One attendee emphasised:
To feel included, you need to feel anticipated.
This statement highlights the importance of embedding accessibility into education as a standard practice rather than an afterthought. Such an approach facilitates a shift from reactive accommodations to proactive inclusion, creating systems where all learners are supported from the outset. Another participant reflected on the rigidity of traditional music education pathways:
Music education and formal routes are quite rigid. If you can’t access one bit, you are put off the whole thing rather than finding a solution.
This underscores the necessity of flexible and adaptive pathways. Without such flexibility, systemic inflexibility risks excluding SEND learners, limiting their ability to thrive and engage meaningfully. A navigable ecosystem is essential if long-standing barriers are to be removed.
Provocation 2: school music and the music education ecosystem
School music is a critical strand of how we understand the music education ecosystem. For many young people, school music will present the first, or at least a dominant form of experiences, understandings and exposure to music. We know that this presents challenges. Swanwick reflects on how during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the word music was divorced from supporting resources in schools in favour of ‘sounds’ with publications such as New Sounds in Class; Sound and Silence; Exploring Sound; Make a New Sound; Sounds Fun; Sounds Interesting. (Swanwick, Reference SWANWICK1999, p. 33). More recently, Juliet Hess has commented on the nature of transformation that occurs when music is taught; as she says, ‘Musics change when they enter schools; separation from community practices automatically occurs’ (Hess, Reference HESS2019, p. 132). Despite these complexities, school music remains, for many, an essential moment of first contact and the place in which young people are able to explore and develop musicality, as they work with a specialist music teacher. As Philpott and Evans have argued (Reference PHILPOTT, EVANS, Cooke, Evans, Philpott and Spruce (Eds)2016), ‘a young person’s entitlement to music is also an entitlement to be creative’ (p. 115), whilst Welch (Reference WELCH2008, p. 117) puts forward the notion that education without music is not education at all: ‘If musical behaviour is integral to human design, it should be equally integral to any education system that professes to educate the whole person’. School music is widely acknowledged to be indispensable by policy makers, school academy trusts and in wider public discourse, debates and media attention (BBC, 2019; UK Music, 2022; Hansard, 2024; David Ross Academy Trust, 2024).
Despite this acknowledgement of the importance of school music in the music education ecosystem, as represented in our framework, challenges exist that create barriers to young people experiencing unilateral and equitable access. We know that it is the case that enabling some young people to access music is not straightforward. A study by Bath et al., Reference BATH, DAUBNEY, MACKRILL and SPRUCE2020, commented on the declining place of music education in schools, particularly noting that ‘music is no longer taught across Key Stage 3 in more than 50% of state funded secondary schools’ (p. 6) and that this picture was continuing to decline. Indeed, other commentaries have highlighted a continuing challenge for music provision in schools. The Cultural Learning Alliance Report Card in May 2024 included the startling statement that ‘42% of schools no longer enter any pupils for GCSE Music’ (p. 9) and that between 2011 and 2023, there had been a 43% decrease in Music A-level entries. Recent research also highlights the scale of the difficulty of the school music ecosystem. For instance, DfE school workforce data indicate that 39% less music teaching time is taking place in schools at Key Stage 5 in 2024 when compared with 2013, with accompanying issues for recruitment and retention, alongside diminishing numbers of applicants for courses leading to Qualified Teacher status (Anderson et al., Reference ANDERSON, WHITTAKER and FAUTLEY2024b). Whilst understanding these changes is complex, it must be acknowledged that supporting and enabling school music continues to present difficulties and is far from a stable environment.
Curriculum understandings, and the place of music within broader curriculum framings, is also an area requiring our focus and attention. There may be continuing impacts from circumstances surrounding the recent COVID pandemic, which restrict young people’s access to music (Anderson, 2024). Whilst more research is needed in this area, we do know that from 59 music teacher participants in a study during 2021, 32% of pupils had a two-year, rather than three-year Key Stage 3, with 21% of young people unable to access weekly curriculum lessons. A significant proportion of music teachers (62%) reported that reduced curriculum time had impacted on pupils accessing and progressing in music. With Ofsted’s focus on curriculum – ‘We want all pupils to benefit from a good well-taught curriculum’ (Ofsted, 2020) – schools and Multi-Academy Trusts are increasingly requiring music teachers to develop statements of intent and to design their curricula on whole-school templates, many of which may not help to facilitate musical learning. The picture is patchy and remains unclear, but there are certainly challenges in this area. With music development plans perhaps uncertain amidst statements that guidance about this in NPME2 ‘was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government’ (explanatory note added in a 2024 update to DfE, 2022), curriculum as a part of such plans remains an unstable domain. It remains to be seen what impact the UK government’s curriculum review will have (DfE, 2024), but the National Curriculum and music curricula within this will likely remain an area of debate and possibly contention.
What does this mean for the music education ecosystem? Thinking of schools as connected to music education pipelines and pathways, rather than isolated regions of practice is important, especially in the context of Hubs being tasked with coordinating roles across enormous geographical areas. Decisions that impact young people’s musical agency in schools and underprivilege the development of musicality through specified learning routes cause conflict which detracts from musical opportunities and learning growth. Schools are a vitally important component of the music education ecosystem, both as provider and gatekeeper. Where access is constricted, the ecosystem and its ecostructure will experience disjuncture and fragmentation at later stages. Ultimately, this exacerbates the fracturing of our national and international musical life. Thinking about how to view this potential musical educational dissonance and deciding how to respond, therefore remains of critical importance. The siloing of music education, may, in this context, create constriction that has the potential to damage musical access for children and young people. Acknowledging this challenge and providing spaces and opportunities to debate the connectivity of the ecosystem will likely provide a valuable point of in-practice reflection for practitioners for some time to come.
Concluding remarks
As we have set out above, the ecosystem of music education is a complex collection of entities, with everchanging interactions and interconnections that transcend traditional descriptors of in-school and out-of-school activities. The progression routes through which a young person might develop musically, even within the formal music education sector, are constructed through models of distributed activity. Multiple entities take up different parts of these pipelines, sometimes being a longstanding presence and in other cases being single touch points of development. Responsibility does not sit with just one stakeholder. The implications for inclusive practice and the notion of schools as a universal site of experience are clear. Outside of formal music education, there is a patchwork of entities that offer vital provision in developing musical talent beyond school contexts. However, again, the location of these within a systemic or joined-up pathway is not clear and is subject to significant geographic variation in the depth of local cultural activity.
Such complexity and variability means that the navigation of these progression pathways is contingent on several key individuals offering high-quality advice to an aspiring young musician, most likely grounded in an educator’s own prior experiences or local knowledge, especially if they are not working directly for an organisation. There are significant potential benefits here around the mobilisation of professional networks where they exist, enabling young people to receive bespoke guidance to springboard their progression journeys and capitalise on recommendations tailored to needs. However, there are also drawbacks, not least the rather haphazard nature in which these routes may be navigated and the variability of wider awareness, especially when working with multiple providers, or with itinerant workforces, which may compound socioeconomic and geographic inequalities. Whilst some localities and professionals will have access to extensive networks that can be mobilised to benefit aspiring young musicians, such an economy of opportunity does not exist everywhere.
Even taking these variations of experience and provision into account, the role of a few key individuals in the musical journey of an aspiring young musician is clearly of central importance. Whilst activity is distributed, those in close proximity to young people have the potential to exert significant influence. With activity distributed, signposting falls to those already working with or connected to a young musician. School staff have the potential to encourage and nurture musical interest, even where they are not themselves necessarily a music education specialist. Similarly, music educators can help a young musician to think the as yet unthought, opening up progression pathways that were hitherto obscured, thought to be blocked or unknown. Connecting up professionals who are, in some instances, working in isolated and siloed areas of activity, and raising a wider awareness of diverse progression routes amongst those closest to young people, is a means to support developmental pathways that are young-person centric. This is why a one-size-fits-all approach to delivery that is based on a quasi-essentialist ‘relevance’ reading of the ecosystem is not fit for purpose. We cannot simply make sweeping generalisations of what is, or is not, relevant to a young person. But similarly, it is simply not tenable as a long-term strategy to continue to be unable to externally project a sense of what progression routes look like for young musicians, or how the music education sector is organised. Access is one thing, but where are the means to progress? How does a young person navigate beyond free at the point of use provision to provide access? By focusing on getting ‘in’ to music, is there a danger of overlooking the structures to continue? What are we to do?
If the NPME’s laudable aspiration of a cohesive and joined-up ecosystem of music education is to be fully realised, then a wider consideration of the place of a variety of specialist activities within local and hyper-local musical ecosystems needs to be encouraged. The authors have put forward one way of conceptualising this here, but there are countless other – and likely more refined – means of doing so. The model shared here is a tool for thinking; it is far from the last word. The authors encourage the community to critique, problematise, dismantle, rail against or revise it as is useful. The challenges posed in representing the music education ecology are indicative of the complexity of the environments that our communities work across; this is not an arbitrary complexity created by splitting hairs for the purposes of academic disputation. It is real and has real-world implications for the young people the music education ecosystem sets out to support.
Being able to advocate powerfully and robustly not only for the specific impact of an individual project or approach, but to situate this within a wider conceptual framework of an ecosystem has the potential to be a transformative for moving discourse around progression routes forward. In one sense, having the ability to talk in terms of a broader theoretical lens may help us to advocate more concretely for the commonalities of experience and outcome. It offers a means of understanding entry and transition points for the wider stakeholders working in music education in England. Its implications go beyond England though, as a mapping like this could be adapted and applied to other local and national contexts. There are likely to be significant alignments but also important divergences where there are differences in the translation of policy into practice. Undertaking such a process can, in turn, illuminate the connectivities and disjunctions between different domains of musical experience, whilst retaining a young-person centric viewpoint.
In our efforts to generalise and represent the highly individualised experiences of a multitude of aspiring young musicians, it is inevitably more difficult to offer a distilled sense of a progression route. However, overgeneralisation can lead to the reinforcing of dominant discourses, sustaining the hegemonic structures that demand revision and critique if steps towards inclusion are to be meaningful. Our aim here has been to begin to move towards a broader conceptualisation that we can use as a tool to think through how we define, map and promote pathways to development, as well as enable thinking inclusively from a systemic perspective.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Chamari Wedamulla for her contribution in developing this ecosystem model.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Adam Whittaker is Associate Professor of Music at Royal Birmingham Conservatoire, where he leads the pedagogy department. He has published on A-level music, classroom music education, instrumental music education, as well as topics across medieval music. His work appears in leading journals, has been referenced in UK Parliament and has been featured on BBC Radio. His research has particularly focused on issues of access in music education, examining structural barriers across the English secondary and higher education systems.
Anthony Anderson is Associate Professor in Music Education at Birmingham City University. He works on a wide variety of research projects, leads teacher CPD and publishes on music education regularly, with a particular specialism in music curriculum. He is a former Head of Music and Performing Arts in Secondary Schools and worked as a classroom music teacher for 16 years.
Victoria Kinsella is Professor of Education at Birmingham City University, where she co-leads the Birmingham Music Education Research Group. She has served as both principal and co-investigator on a substantial number of research projects, encompassing diverse settings such as schools, prisons and galleries. Her work notably focuses on music education, creativities, composing, the arts and engaging with young people at risk of educational exclusion including those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).
Martin Fautley is Emeritus Professor of Music Education at Birmingham City University, UK. After many years as a classroom music teacher, his doctoral research investigated teaching, learning and assessment of classroom music making. He is currently researching assessment, classroom composing and creativity, policy and musical learning and progression. He is author of ten books and over 60 journal articles and chapters.
