Introduction

Progression has been conceptualized in a range of different ways, several of which can be applied in the context of music education. For instance, the Oxford Dictionary defines progress as ‘forward or onward movement towards a destination’; ‘advance or development towards completion, betterment, etc.’; or ‘improvement’. Progression is defined as ‘the act or an instance of making progress.’ Reflecting these definitions musical progression might include working towards meeting a short term learning goal, taking a particular examination, pursuing a specific career path, or developing or improving a range of musical skills. This paper focuses on the impact of the adoption of the Musical Futures approach in England on two aspects of progression, the development and enhancement of musical skills and the impact on take-up of music as an option at Key Stage 4 (KS4) (age range 14–16). While there has been considerable research on the assessment of the development of musical skills in the classroom and why young people do not continue with school music when it becomes optional (see for example Little, Reference LITTLE2009), there has been much less consideration of how more young people might enhance their musical skills and be encouraged to continue with school music in KS4. The Musical Futures approach was developed with a view to addressing these issues through practical music making, initially in popular music, a genre with which young people engage in their everyday lives.

Recently, concerns have been raised in England about the place of music in the secondary school curriculum. As students progress through school their interest in school music declines and in comparison with other subjects relatively few take the General Certificate of School Education (GCSE) music examination (Harland et al., Reference HARLAND, KINDER, LORD, STOTT, SCHAGEN, HAYNES, CUSWORTH, WHITE and PAOLA2000) at age 16. This has led to some suggesting that music should be removed from the school curriculum with a re-focusing on extra-curricular activity (Sloboda, Reference SLOBODA2001). These concerns are not new. In the early 20^th Century music accounted for only 1 per cent of examination entries in 1926 and in the 1940s there was only one music examiner in the country for the School Certificate (Crabtree, Reference CRABTREE1947). In 1911 the Inspection of Music in Secondary Schools indicated that some schools did not see music as having relevance for future employment and did not include it in the curriculum offer while inspectors were critical of the quality of teaching between 1922 and 1929. In some ways little has changed. At the start of the 21^st century Ofsted (2003) concluded that music lessons displayed some of the best and worst practice across all subjects, with too much variability in quality. Lessons were described as unimaginatively taught and out of touch with pupils’ interests. Schools had low expectations, with too great a focus on teaching examination content.

Since then a series of Ofsted reports have raised similar concerns. The 2009 report indicated that generally, lessons were practical and included a range of experiences but there was perceived to be a lack of challenge. A range of different activities were offered but insufficient links were made between them. Students were not given sufficient opportunities to increase their understanding and make progress. They performed and composed in a variety of styles without relating these to the wider musical context. While this ensured appropriate breadth in the curriculum it did not support deep understanding and progression (Ofsted, 2009). Subsequent reports (2011, 2012, 2013) indicated that while there was some exceptional work there was much provision that was inadequate or barely satisfactory. The 2011 report found that relatively few schools had a clear understanding about how all students should make good musical progress as they moved through the curriculum in Key Stages 1 to 3. Secondary school students’ musical achievement was weakest in KS3. The report identified that in about a quarter of Key Stage 3 lessons observed, students made inadequate progress. While schools often gave students a range of musical experiences learning was disjointed and superficial. Classical music was rarely introduced to pupils. At Key Stage 4 music was a specialized activity for a small minority. This high level of selectivity was reinforced by later reports. In the 2012 and 2013 reports Ofsted indicated that while there was much to celebrate about music education, there were concerns that the wide range of tuition and ensemble opportunities available in the newly established music hubs was only accessible for a minority of pupils. This reinforced the selective nature of music education.

The issue of the continuation of music education when it becomes optional is not a solely English issue. For instance, in Canada on average only 10–12% of secondary school students continue with music once it is not compulsory at the age of 14 (Bolden, Reference BOLDEN, Beynon and Veblen2012). In the UK (excluding Scotland) relatively few students take GCSE music in comparison with other subjects. For instance, in 2014, the percentage of students taking GCSE music was 7.1% compared to 13.9% taking Art and Design, 17.1% taking Physical Education and Sports Studies, 11.8% taking Drama and Theatre studies and 8.9% taking Media/Film/TV studies (Gill, Reference GILL2015). Consideration of the data relating to the take-up of music over time shows that the percentage taking music at GCSE in the 21^st century has remained remarkably stable (see Table 1). However, examination relating to take-up which considers school type, overall attainment and levels of deprivation shows that most students taking music at GCSE are amongst those with the highest levels of overall attainment, the lowest levels of deprivation, and attending schools with an academic focus (see Table 1). It is clear that the challenge is not only to increase the number of young people taking music at KS4 but to encourage a wider range of students, particularly those from lower socio-economic status groups to continue with music.

Table 1.

Percentage of students taking GCSE music between 2000 and 2014

*Data derived from reports by Cambridge Assessment

*Levels of overall attainment were assessed in relation to overall GCSE points

*Levels of deprivation were derived from national databases

Persuading more young people to continue with music beyond the age of 14 is particularly challenging as there is evidence of a widely-held perception that it is necessary to have high level instrumental skills in order to continue with music and take national examinations at age 16 and 18 (Lamont et al., Reference LAMONT, HARGREAVES, MARSHALL and TARRNAT2003; Wright, Reference WRIGHT2002). Lamont and Maton (Reference LAMONT, MATON and Wright2010) invoke the concept of legitimation codes to describe the understandings that students have of what is required for success. They argue that students perceive school music as an elite code which requires special knowledge, skills and ability. They refer to ‘knowledge codes’ that encode this legitimized and sanctioned (specialist) knowledge and ‘knower codes’ that refer to sensibilities and dispositions: ‘the kind of knower that you are’. (p 270). In school music knowledge codes focus on the processes, procedures and theoretical knowledge associated with Western classical music, while the knower codes are those of practitioners including composers, performers and listeners. Those without the knowledge codes and identities which match those of the school system are likely to disengage from school music.

Music teachers are almost always trained in the Western classical tradition and some music teachers have been found to discourage pupils with no instrumental skills from continuing with music as an option (Ofsted, 2009). This reinforces the perceptions of music as being an elite pursuit. In addition, young people with high-level instrumental or vocal skills may see no need to continue with music at KS4 unless they wish to pursue a career in music (Little, Reference LITTLE2009) particularly as music is perceived to have little value in career terms in the wider community (Lamont et al., Reference LAMONT, HARGREAVES, MARSHALL and TARRNAT2003; Hallam, Creech & McQueen, Reference HALLAM, CREECH and McQUEEN2009). Parents also sometimes dissuade their children from taking music (Button, Reference BUTTON2006; Hallam et al., Reference HALLAM, CREECH and McQUEEN2009). Overall, while young people in secondary schools in England have reported that they enjoy school music lessons (Lamont et al., Reference LAMONT, HARGREAVES, MARSHALL and TARRNAT2003), value the opportunities to work practically and indicate that music increases their self-esteem, particularly when they can perform to others (Ofsted, 2009; Hallam et al., Reference HALLAM, CREECH and McQUEEN2009) most do not take up opportunities to continue with it in KS4.

It was in this context that Musical Futures was developed by the Paul Hamlyn foundation to encourage more young people to continue with music. It is broadly based on the principles of ‘informal learning’, a much contested concept (Narita & Green, Reference NARITA, GREEN, Benedict, Schmidt, Spruce and Woodford2016). Folkestad (Reference FOLKESTAD2006) drawing on research undertaken in the Nordic countries on the way that popular musicians develop their skills (Fornas, Lindberg & Sernhede, 1995; Berkaak & Ruud, Reference BERKAAK and RUUD1994; Lilliestam, Reference LILLIESTAM1996, Johansson, Reference JOHANSON2002; Soderman & Folkestad, Reference SODERMAN and FOLKESTAD2004) and the work of Green (Reference GREEN2002) argues that formal learning occurs when the activity is sequenced beforehand by a teacher or other leader who leads and manages the activity. In contrast, informal learning is not planned in advance. The activity determines the way of working/ playing/ composing and the process evolves through the interaction of the participants in the activity. Other key features relate to participation as voluntary or self-chosen, the situation where the learning takes place; the learning style (nature of the learning process), ownership (who owns the decisions of the activity); and intentionality (what is the aim). In practice, in the classroom, the boundaries between formal and informal learning are not always clear and any lesson may include elements of each.

Within an informal learning approach, Musical Futures was introduced to devise new and imaginative ways of engaging young people, aged 11–19, in musical activities, providing all children with opportunities to engage with music that reflected their interests, generally popular music, while also empowering them in taking control of their musical learning (Green, Reference GREEN2008). It was hoped that the adoption of the Musical Futures approach would encourage more young people from a wider range of backgrounds to continue with music when it became optional, in part because the approach was informal in nature, and also because its starting point was popular music. Musical Futures was launched in 2003 and emerged from research which focused on how musicians working in popular genres learned through listening and playing by ear (Green, Reference GREEN2002; Reference GREEN2008). It was based on the development of student-centred pedagogies. Teachers facilitated learning rather than directing it with pupils participating in determining the nature of the curriculum. The original pilot work took place between 2004 and 2006 in three Local Authority Music Services in the UK with four key strands emerging:

• — Informal learning at KS3;

• — The whole curriculum approach;

• — Personalising Extra-Curricular Music; and

• — NUMU.

Musical Futures conceptualized each of these activities as below:

Informal Music Learning at Key Stage 3 was based on the real-life learning practices and processes of popular musicians, enabling students to learn alongside friends, through independent, self-directed learning with teachers acting as facilitators and musical models.

The Whole Curriculum Approach was described as a scheme of work for Year 8 students who had not previously experienced sustained musical engagement included extra support for the teacher, bringing informal learning processes into schools, making tangible connections with students’ musical lives outside school, and involving students in real musical activity, in genuine musical situations and environments.

Personalising Extra-Curricular Music provided guidance on the personalization of activities that students undertook outside of the school curriculum so that they complemented the curricular work in schools and enhanced students’ musical progression.

NUMU (www.numu.org.uk) was an interactive web space for creating music, publishing, marketing and promoting, allowing students to develop skills and apply them to a real life situation with a global audience.

Following this initial work Musical Futures published a toolkit of teacher resources which included a wide range of materials – lesson plans, National Curriculum mapping, video and audio material, case studies and quotes from participants, students and teachers (www.musicalfutures.org). A two-year Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programme was offered and in 2008 Musical Futures set up a national network of ‘Champion Schools’. Musical Futures described these as adapting and adopting Musical Futures independently (d'Amore, Reference D'AMORE2014).

Since its initial conceptualisation the programme has been developed further based on feedback which provided increasing knowledge of how teachers adapted and applied the pedagogy in a range of classroom situations. The programme now focuses on two key areas: informal learning and non-formal teaching. Informal learning, as defined by Musical Futures, is where students determine their own targets and learn through self-directed activities starting with familiar music, moving on to other genres and ultimately composition. When this approach is adopted the role of the teacher is to model, support, advise and guide. Non-formal teaching is described as based on community music practice. Inclusive group-based activities in performing, listening, composing and improvising are undertaken with teachers and students co-constructing content. As a result of these changes Musical Futures is now defined as ‘an approach to teaching and learning. . . a new way of thinking about music-making in schools that brings non-formal teaching and informal learning approaches into the more formal context of schools’ (Musical Futures, 2014, p. 9).

A number of evaluations of the implementation of the Musical Futures approach to teaching music have been undertaken. These have been broadly positive indicating enhanced motivation and enthusiasm for music and as a consequence improvement in learning and progression (see Benson, Reference BENSON2012; Evans, Beauchamp & John, Reference EVANS, BEAUCHAMP and JOHN2015; John & Evans, Reference JOHN and EVANS2013; Ofsted, 2006; O'Neill & Bespflug, Reference O'NEILL and BESPFLUG2011; Younker et al., Reference YOUNKER, WRIGHT, LINTON and BEYNON2012). In pilot work in Australia, some teachers reported an increase in students taking instrumental music and/or electing to participate in more classroom music, although others were cautious saying that it was too early to comment (Jeanneret, McLennan & Stevens-Ballenger, Reference JEANNERET, MCLENNAN and STEVENS–BALLENGER2011). In Wales, teachers reported an increase in national curriculum levels for many students, in some cases increased up-take at Key Stage 4 and increased take up of instrumental tuition. The students also reported enhanced and speedier learning (John & Evans, Reference JOHN and EVANS2013). Wright (Reference WRIGHT, Benedict, Schmidt, Spruce and Woodford2016), undertaking an analysis of the introduction of informal music pedagogy broadly based on the Musical Futures approach, tracked students’ perceptions of their pedagogical capital (skills, knowledge and understanding related to learning and teaching and ownership of pedagogical decision making) and musical capital (skills knowledge and understanding related to music, self-perceptions of musicality and musical potential), noting changes in both (Wright, Reference WRIGHT, Burnard, Soderman and Hofvander–Truleson2015).

In the Nordic countries informal, student centred learning in music lessons has been in place for many years (Karlsen & Vakeva, Reference KARSLEN and VAKEVA2012). In the 1960s when education became compulsory in Sweden the first music education national curriculum was based on music literacy, singing songs in harmony and the Western history of music (Georgii-Hemming & Westvall, Reference GEORGII–HEMMING and WESTVALL2010). This changed when policy documents advocated that each student was entitled to have his or her individual needs and interests recognized in school (Zackari & Modigh, Reference ZACKARI and MODIGH2000). As a result the national curriculum emphasized the students’ own world of musical experience and was based on singing, playing instruments and making music, described by Stålhammar (Reference STÅLHAMMAR1995) as a transition from school music to music in school. The content of lessons was developed jointly by teachers and students and focused on students’ development as human beings, musical craft and musical activities (Georgii-Hemming & Westvall, Reference GEORGII–HEMMING and WESTVALL2010). Popular music became part of the compulsory school music curricula in the 1970s. In response to the changes, in 1971 a music teacher education programme (SAMUS) was launched in Gothenburg embracing musical styles such as jazz, folk music, pop and rock. Other higher education institutions in the Nordic countries soon adopted this approach with the pedagogical approaches adopted frequently building on the learning strategies that popular musicians employ when acquiring their skills and knowledge in informal situations or practices which had been identified through a range of Nordic research (see Karlsen & Vakeva, Reference KARSLEN and VAKEVA2012). In practice this meant that there were greater links between students’ extra-curricular music activities and the activities that they undertook in the classroom. The longer time span of the implementation of informal learning of popular music in the classroom in the Nordic countries has made it possible to evaluate its impact over a longer period of time. What has emerged is that as the music that the students engage with out of school changes quickly, what is learned in school tends to not include many contemporary genres and styles (Skolverket, 2004; Georgii-Hemming, Reference GEORGII–HEMMING2006; Vakeva, Reference VAKEVA2010). As teachers design the curriculum to meet the needs of their students there is also large variability between schools (Georgii-Hemming & Westvall, Reference GEORGII–HEMMING and WESTVALL2010). Overall, there are still some groups of students whose needs are not met and who tend to become disengaged (Bergman, Reference BERGMAN2009). The most serious criticism is the lack of progression. Teaching tends to be short-term, unplanned and populist with many one-off activities which contribute to a lack of continuity (Georgii-Hemming & Westvall, Reference GEORGII–HEMMING and WESTVALL2010; Skolverket, 2004).

Taking account of the literature considered above, the aim of the research reported here was to explore the extent to which teachers and students perceived that Musical Futures had supported the development of musical skills, the take-up of music in Key Stage 4 and had influenced the musical qualifications that schools were offering.

The specific research questions were:

Does the implementation of the Musical Futures approach

• − enhance the musical progression of participating students in terms of the development of musical skills?

• − increase the take-up of music as an option at Key Stage 4?

• − change the nature of the qualifications offered at Key Stage 4?