Changes in the Scottish Music Curriculum between 1978–2000

Between 1978 and 2000 there were a number of initiatives designed to bring about changes in Scottish music education. Four significant publications are considered here. These are Curriculum Paper 16 (SED, 1978); Standard Grade Music (SEB, 1988); the 5–14 Music Curriculum (Scottish Office Education Department, 1992a) and the ‘Higher Still’ Music Programme (1994–1999). The key importance of Curriculum Paper 16 (1978) is that it recognised for the first time that music should be made accessible to all pupils at each stage of their schooling and attempted to stimulate change to achieve that end. The report, however, proved highly contentious and it did not gain wholehearted approval with all teachers as is corroborated by Sloggie and Ross (Reference Sloggie and Ross1985: 270).

An accompanying set of newsletters and occasional papers (e.g. Scottish Central Committee on Music, 1979, 1985) became a means through which further dialogue about music in secondary schools could be promoted and so encouraged teachers to respond to the ideas being put forward in the report. What was being proposed contrasted markedly from what Gebbie (Reference Gebbie1984) refers to as the long-standing tradition of community singing and use of sol-fa that had previously dominated Scottish music education. Additionally, Meiklejohn (Scottish Central Committee on Music Newsletter No 5; 1982: 18) highlights the importance attached to adopting a more child-centred approach, as opposed to following a largely discredited and elitist subject-based curriculum.

Curriculum Paper 16 (1978) challenged previous practice by lending equal weighting to performing, creating and responding to music, although Sheridan and Byrne (Reference Sheridan, Byrne, Bryce and Humes2003) believe that more enlightened practitioners at this time were probably unaware of the indirect influence of what they refer to as the ‘Comprehensive Musicianship’ model upon such thinking. This they contend had grown from the combined influences and philosophies of three American developments within music education during the late 1950s and 1960s (see Reimer, Reference Reimer1970; Choksy et al., Reference Choksy, Abramson, Gillespie and Woods1986). The latter model sought to develop musical competencies, by promoting a set of classroom experiences that were linked to addressing the above musical parameters. Curriculum Paper 16 (1978) also stated that music teaching in nursery and primary schools had only met with partial success and that this reflected its low priority in the eyes of teachers. A change in the mindsets of teachers was therefore attempted, in part, by the promotion of different types of classroom activities.

The comments of secondary teachers within the various newsletters and occasional papers (Scottish Central Committee on Music, 1979–1985) stressed the difficulties of pupil management when attempting to implement the recommendations set out within Curriculum Paper 16. Of these, the most contentious was the inappropriate size of music classes, with principal teachers suggesting that music was regarded as a theoretical as opposed to a practical subject. Changes in teaching strategies implied alterations in teacher roles and styles, including, as Gould remarks (Scottish Central Committee on Music, Occasional Paper No 3; 1984: 1), those of facilitator, communicator, formulator, manager, motivator and trainer. Assessment practices for music had not been developed in primary schools and the report recommended identifying pupil strengths and weaknesses in areas such as physical co-ordination, pitch, rhythm and musical interest. In contrast, at secondary level, pupil monitoring was already seen as an ‘entitlement’ for all (Scottish Examination Board, 1988).

Standard Grade Music (1988) offered opportunities for students to perform on two instruments; one as a solo and another as part of ensemble work alongside listening and inventing. In line with the aim of maximised accessibility, the examination was designed to cater for all attainment levels within mixed ability classes. Standard Grade Music attached importance to the realisation of agreed targets within lessons, to different ways of delivering the curriculum and in providing fully articulated criteria for the assessment of course components using grade related criteria at 3 levels. The underlying rationale for Standard Grade Music (1988) was an attempt to promote the social, physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual well being of children. Guided by the Munn Report (Scottish Education Department, 1977), the course writers actively sought to promote music as a medium within aesthetic education that could involve pupils in performing, creating and in expressing ideas, moods and emotions through music. Teachers were required to tailor their courses to ensure coverage of identified concepts at Foundation, General and Credit levels, taking account of a range of musical parameters, differentiating tasks according to the musical abilities of candidates.

In advice to teachers concerning Standard Grade (Scottish Examination Board, 1988), it is suggested there are at least three ways of organising practical music making: via multi-instrumental, uni-instrumental or through adopting an ‘open door’ policy. The first, referred to group work, where pupils participated as part of a class ensemble or classroom orchestra. Teacher arrangements were ‘differentiated’, with parts that catered for differing ability levels (Scottish Examination Board, 1988: 33). The uni-instrumental concentrated on the teaching of a single instrument such as the guitar. The ‘open door’ approach required teachers to arrange music so as to take account of individual pupil needs and preferences and was first proposed by Curriculum Paper 16 (1978). A wide range of teaching styles and strategies were encouraged and explored within the course that embraced western classical forms, pop music, the avant-garde, aspects of world music and traditional Scottish music. This resulted in a substantial increase in subject presentations, from around 2,000 students at Ordinary Grade in 1984 to almost 10,000 in 1998 (Scottish Office Education and Industry Department, 1998), so establishing music as a mainstream subject for all.

Assessment is integral to Standard Grade Music with importance being attached to an approach that is straightforward and manageable, involving techniques that include practical tests, folios of tapes and scores for inventing, as well as a range of written tasks for listening, with each candidate maintaining a folio of work containing evidence of course achievement, supported by a progress profile. In spite of such clarity of thinking, controversy raged over the issue of course assessment with Sheridan and Byrne (Reference Sheridan, Byrne, Bryce and Humes2003: 576) referring to difficulties concerning the assessment of solo and group performance. More significantly, they describe the compulsory teaching and assessment of inventing ‘as the most contentious area of the new curriculum’.

Within the 5–14 curriculum (Scottish Office Education Department, 1992a) music was viewed as part of an ‘expressive arts’ grouping that also included art, drama and physical education. The curriculum ultimately included attainment targets linked to six levels of progression from A to F. Boyd and Simpson (Reference Boyd, Simpson, Bryce and Humes2003) suggest that the decision to place these subjects within a particular curricular grouping, was at first glance far more compatible with the system adopted in primary schools. Yet, as Brown (Reference Brown1991) and Hanlon (Reference Hanlon1993) confirm, in their content and philosophy they are more ‘in tune’ with work usually undertaken in secondary schools. The aims specific to 5–14 music were to provide all pupils with opportunities to take an active part in the full range of musical activities; to enable pupils to realise their full potential, irrespective of ability; to enable pupils to prepare for a lifetime of musical experiences and enjoyment through developing appropriate skills, knowledge and understanding (Scottish Office Education Department, 1992a: 3). These aims were to be achieved through the implementation of agreed attainment outcomesFootnote ² linked to six strands,Footnote ³ each representing a key aspect of the curriculum.

Teaching content involves the realisation of three 5–14 attainment outcomes, linked to programmes of study which outline a range of activities for each of the identified strands. In the area of curriculum planning (Scottish Office Education Department, 1994c: 13) it is recommended that longer term planning should incorporate the identified strands, offer skill-based opportunities to pupils and clarify teacher roles, including those of the visiting specialist. Shorter term planning is more closely linked to topic work and to delivering specific ‘blocks’ of teaching. No attempt is made within the guidelines (Scottish Office Education Department, 1992a) to set out possible teacher roles or to suggest classroom styles, but decisions relating to these questions emerge from teacher responses to the delivery of learning outcomes, strands, levels and programmes of study.

The approach to 5–14 assessment demonstrates a shift to what Bryce (Reference Bryce, Bryce and Humes2003) refers to as internal, more informal forms of assessment. This, he claims, places considerable demands on teachers who are asked to prepare detailed reports that describe a pupil's progress, including their perceived strengths and weaknesses. At secondary school, self assessment appears alongside peer group assessment and teacher initiated strategies, with the teacher's role being identified in terms of five key elements: those of planning, teaching, recording, reporting and pupil evaluation (Scottish Office Education Department, 1991).

The 1990s saw a radical ‘shake-up’ of post-16 education (Scottish Office Education and Industry Department, 1994b). The initial report by the Howie Committee (Scottish Office Education Department, 1992b) recognised the problems of the fifth and sixth form curriculum and suggested that there was consensus about the need for reform.

Although the Howie Report was at first largely welcomed, as Pickard (Reference Pickard, Bryce and Humes2003) states, its ‘academic-vocational’ division was seen as far too divisive and it was replaced with what became known as the ‘Higher Still’ programme (Scottish Office Education and Industry Department, 1994b). A key intention was to substantially rationalise curriculum provision for S5/S6 students through developing what it saw as more coherent student pathways (Scottish Office Education and Industry Department, 1997). Its stated rationale (Higher Still Development Unit, 1997), however, may be too wide ranging, with the underlying purpose and aims of the reforms often being described in rather broad and sweeping terms. Although the previous system of ‘Highers’ was felt to attach too little importance to vocational education, the attempts made to address this omission were not well received (Munro, Reference Munro1994).

The flexibility of the overall structure of ‘Higher Still’ was meant to allow students, through a range of optional studies, to select courses that matched their individual interests and abilities. The programme evolved from previous Scottish Examination Board courses (Scottish Examination Board: 1990, 1992) and Scottish Vocational (SCOTVEC) modules with the core elements of performing, inventing and listening continuing to be central to teaching and being contained within the 80 hour mandatory unit at Intermediate, Higher and Advanced Higher levels. This was meant to provide for appropriate breadth in musicianship training whilst the optional units were intended to develop opportunities for students to specialise in one of a number of 40 hour courses including Sound Engineering and Production, MIDI Sequencing, Accompanying and at Advanced Higher, Training and Directing.

The management and organisation of classroom music at post-16 level requires staff to adopt different approaches when teaching the mandatory, as opposed to optional course units. One consequence of the rationalisation of previous modules and courses into units at five levels at ‘Higher Still’ has been to simplify course selection. Students can now opt to pursue music through a variety of pathways, gaining credit for the successful completion of either a free-standing course unit (e.g. Accompanying), for later accreditation, or in pursuing a single level award at one sitting. Assessment is linked to a national bank of support materials (Higher Still Development Unit, 1998) and individual units can be broken down into a series of three outcomes, instruments of assessment and modes of re-assessment. Course evaluation takes place on two levels, externally, via the Scottish Qualifications Agency and, internally, through teacher input at each local centre.

The findings

Questionnaire responses were received from 34 secondary staff, with the vast majority (85%) indicating that they welcomed the 5–14 reforms, and a sizeable proportion (67%) doing the same for ‘Higher Still’. Most responded favourably to both the 5–14 changes (70%) and those for ‘Higher Still’ (73%). Over three-fifths of those questioned felt that the level of consultation was appropriate, with the remainder describing this process as inappropriate: opinion being similarly divided as to the effectiveness of the ‘pace’ of change itself. The 5–14 curriculum was felt to afford greater opportunities for learning progression (85%) and in allowing a sensible coverage of the subject (88%), with figures of 88% and 91% respectively for ‘Higher Still’. Over 21 staff (61%) also indicated there had been a change in the level of authority support for music since 1996 (three-quarters of whom claimed there was a reduction in support), with 11 teachers (32%) referring to there being ‘no change’.

Over 85% of respondents agreed that both music technology and practical music were important contributors to curriculum change, with 79% stating this was also true of certificate music and assessment: this figure dropped to 73% when the raising of subject standards was considered. Most teachers (76%) found HMI reports helpful, although, surprisingly, 23% saw them as unhelpful. The influence of other factors (e.g. initial training, resources, personal skills, colleague support) brought replies that remained remarkably consistent, with 82–97% of teachers seeing these issues as ‘influential’: the exceptions being in-service training and resourcing. All staff felt they were able to exercise their professional judgement to some (47%) or a greater extent (53%).

In the primary sector, 76 returns were received from 38 schools, including 15 responses from visiting primary music specialists. Almost three-quarters of teachers (74%) welcomed the 5–14 reforms, with over 81% (62 staff) responding favourably to the way they had been introduced. In contrast, only a small majority (52%) felt that the consultation process had been inappropriate, with 41 staff (54%) being dissatisfied that their views had not been included within the guidelines. A clear majority said that opportunities still existed for learning progression (75%) and in achieving a sensible coverage of the curriculum (85%).

Three-quarters of primary teachers also claimed that there had been an alteration in the level of authority support for music since 1996, with 18 staff (24%) saying that there had been ‘no change’. Of those who had said there had been a change (i.e. 57 staff), 2 teachers (3.5%) referred to an ‘increase’, 29 (51%) to a general ‘reduction’, with 26 staff (over 45%) referring to a large reduction in curriculum support. Negative responses were received (46% of P1–3 staff; 57% of P4–7 teachers) over a perceived lack of time for curriculum music, whilst 64 teachers (84%) saw the presence of a music specialist as extremely important. Comments on the significance of other issues (raising standards, practical activities, topic work and learning instruments), resulted in teachers viewing these areas as ‘important’ (73–89% of returns), although they placed less emphasis on the relevance of individual assessment (49%) or in using music technology (65%). Primary staff did not regard in-service training as influential (59%) nor did they wish to enhance their musical skills or qualifications. Only 41 teachers (54%) regarded HMI reports as being helpful or very helpful. However, as was the case with secondary musicians, there was a polarisation of opinion with a significant minority (30 staff) rating the reports as either not very helpful or unhelpful. Most primary teachers said that they still exercised their professional judgement to some (54 staff) or a greater extent (19 staff) in lessons with only one teacher saying this was never the case.

During the staff interviews, secondary teachers said they regarded Curriculum Paper 16 as an important landmark in Scottish music education that led to a move towards a more practice-based approach. There was also evidence of a resistance to change in the primary sector, due to the perceived apathy of a significant number of class teachers. In secondary schools, the report led to changes in teaching content, a wider repertoire of classroom activities, greater opportunities for instrumental work and attention to a broader range of styles, culminating in the development of Standard Grade Music.

Curriculum Paper 16 was viewed as forward thinking by the teacher educator although no dedicated time had been allocated to its development in schools, so lessening its impact and influence on the curriculum. There was nevertheless a move away in primary schools from a curriculum centred on class singing to a broader content base that now involved listening, exploring sound and compositional work. Additional comments by the retired HMI said that Curriculum Paper 16 proposed a more adventurous form of music making and that this brought with it implications for teacher education, subject resourcing and accommodation. Change, he said, was achieved through the support of local authorities and via the influence of the schools' inspectorate.

The recommendations for listening and inventing within the 5–14 guidelines were welcomed by secondary teachers, as was the emphasis on curriculum progression and continuity. It was agreed that the guidelines were implemented less questionably in primary schools than in the secondary sector, although they were useful in setting targets for S1/S2 students, but less so for lesson planning. There was also a consensus that the subject could not be taught successfully by non-specialists without support. For primary specialists, the 5–14 guidelines encouraged staff to change their attitudes towards sound exploration and to employ rhythmic ideas more freely within lessons. Additionally, there appeared to be a reduction in both the amount of vocal activities and in the teaching of music within topic work.

The teacher educator drew attention to the difficulties of introducing the 5–14 music guidelines and said that the decision to employ targets and strands was not entirely helpful, although the use of a common format across curricular areas made the document more accessible to teachers. Delivery of the music curriculum was regarded as being more problematic in the later primary stages, particularly where there were gaps in a teacher's knowledge and skills. The value of radio and television broadcasts and certain published curricular schemes (e.g. Odam et al., Reference Odam, Arnold, Ley and Curtis1996) was highlighted and regarded as helpful, even though reductions in specialist support could have a correspondingly negative impact upon curriculum change. The main achievements were that many primary staff became more informed about music teaching and in making use of a dedicated curriculum structure.

Standard Grade Music appeared to have created a climate for change in the teaching of S3/S4 students and led to increased numbers of examination candidates. Further opportunities for practical music making were welcomed, especially solo and group performance and the importance of technology was recognised, especially the increased deployment of electronic instruments and computer packages within lessons.

At ‘Higher Still’ what stood out was the perceived flexibility of the music programme, the opportunities for progression, and the effectiveness of its modular structure. Within subject assessment, there were problems with regard to paper ‘overload’, with an unnecessary duplication of effort and confusion over the allocation of codes to many of the courses, although approaches had become more streamlined. The issues of curriculum progression, balance and continuity were starting to be addressed and only needed time to establish.

A discussion of the findings

Following an analysis of the literature and review of the music curriculum initiatives, a series of general features (GF1–6) and emerging critical issues (CI 1–5) were identified and used to examine the data from the questionnaires and the teacher interviews. The first group is concerned with the wider implications for change: the second looks specifically at the impact of change on the work of teachers.

Conclusions and implications

In clarifying the key implications of change for practitioners, it was found that teacher roles are now more wide ranging and centred on an integrated approach to music learning. Changes to classroom practice have impacted on teacher organisation, teaching styles and in the choice of resources. Staff, especially in the secondary sector, increasingly use differentiated materials, so catering for the range of musical attainment in their classes.

The major benefits to music teaching included the introduction of an ‘open-door’ approach into lessons, the identification of teaching strands and levels and in achieving a higher profile for music within the curriculum. There has also been an increase in examination candidates and a heightening in teacher confidence, especially amongst non-specialists. The major disadvantages were that primary music specialists felt that implementing the national guidelines could result in a loss of ‘spontaneity’ in their teaching and a possible ‘watering down’ of subject content. Additionally, the availability of musical resources and accommodation did not appear to keep pace with the reforms being introduced for the 5–14 age range.

In recognising the part played by educational theories to promote and foster change, teachers appeared to occupy a pivotal role and without their active support, change was unlikely to take place. The literature emphasises the importance of establishing a positive climate for change, whilst the success of many curriculum initiatives could be attributed to their evolutionary nature, as well as the emphasis on existing classroom practices. Understanding appropriate theories for change does help teachers to become more fully involved in this process, and, equally, to enhance their understanding in how to effect change in lessons.

Change can imply alterations to teacher beliefs, practice, and in the uses made of subject materials. Furthermore, the literature stresses the importance of addressing curriculum progression, continuity and balance during the planning process. Adopting a ‘flexible’ approach can also make an important contribution towards the success of curriculum initiatives, including giving pupils greater responsibility for their learning, whilst teachers need to be made aware of which changes to introduce and how to foster them in lessons.

The importance of effective dissemination must be stressed, whilst proposals for ‘change’ need to be viable and directly relevant for the classroom, providing teacher access to suitable resources, accommodation and subject expertise. It also has to be recognised that external reforms can prove effective and give legitimacy to change when they involve teachers fully from the outset. It can address the differing demands placed on teachers, so raising subject expectations within the classroom.

The development of the subject has been enhanced by music technology and other media resources, including radio and television and they have played a part in consolidating an integrated approach to music teaching. Greater importance, however, appears to be attached to using electronic equipment in secondary music departments than is the case for primary schools, though advances in music technology continue to make a major contribution to subject success and to facilitating further improvements to classroom practice. Published curriculum materials have also played an important role in raising musical standards and in providing ‘continuity’ across sectors.

In identifying and responding to existing ‘barriers’ to school music it was suggested that teachers and policy makers were made aware of those issues that could militate against successful change (e.g. a lack of teaching time) and to find ways of responding to them. Attention also needs to be centred on devising and deploying strategies that can support the differing needs of primary and secondary musicians and non-specialists. At post-16 level, the introduction of some strategies for internal assessment have contributed to difficulties as regards teacher workload: issues which, in the future, may need to be carefully re-examined.