DOI: 10.1111/chso.

12386

POLICY REVIEW

The declining place of music education in schools in

England

Naomi Bath1  | Alison Daubney2  | Duncan Mackrill2  | Gary Spruce3

1
Incorporated Society of Musicians,
London, UK
Abstract
2
University of Sussex, Brighton, UK This article addresses the provision of music education in
3
Birmingham City University, schools in England, arguing that access to music education
Birmingham, UK is the right of every child and therefore that a high-quality
and sustained curriculum offer must be provided in all state-
Correspondence
Naomi Bath, Incorporated Society of funded schools. Music education in England is widely recog-
Musicians, 4-5 Inverness Mews, London nised as being marginalised in state schools, despite it being
W2 3JQ, UK.
Email: naomi.bath@gmail.com
a statutory requirement as part of the National Curriculum.
This policy review examines several threats to music edu-
cation, such as accountability measures, funding cuts, cur-
riculum narrowing and erosion of the teaching workforce,
identifying some of the key evidence in each case.

KEYWORDS
accountability, curriculum, England, music education, music in schools

I NT RO D U C TIO N

In recent years, mounting evidence of the decline in music education in schools in England has given
rise to increasing concern from teachers, academics and sector organisations. Music education in
England has recently been described as being ‘in a perilous state’ (Savage & Barnard, 2019, p. 3), ‘in
crisis’ (APPG for Music Education, 2019, p. 2) and ‘in dramatic decline’ (Cooper, 2018, p. 4). Whilst
the provision of music education has been a statutory requirement for students until the age of 14 since
the inclusion of music in the National Curriculum in 1992, research from multiple sources has shown
that provision across England is highly variable (APPG for Music Education, 2019; Department for
Education & Department for Culture, Media & Sport, 2011; Savage & Barnard, 2019). This piece
identifies some of the key evidence and explores multifaceted reasons behind this decline.
In this article, we have directed our attention to where music is free at the point of delivery. This
is important in terms of access to music education, given the wider context of social and economic
inequality in England and the threat of a musical education becoming the preserve of the privileged

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children

Children & Society. 2020;34:443–457.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/chso   |  443

 |
444      BATH et al.

few. We have focused in more closely on the provision of curriculum-based music education in state-
funded schools because this is the only place where all children should be able to access music. The
article first briefly outlines the current landscape for music education in England, and then considers
the importance of music education for children's development, as well as different ways in which it
can be seen to generate ‘value’ to policy-makers. It then examines several threats to music education
that have arisen as a result of shifts in government policy since 2010. We argue that access to music
education is the right of every child and therefore that a high-quality and sustained curriculum offer
must be provided in all state-funded schools.

M USIC ED U CAT ION IN E NG LA ND

Whilst subject to fluctuating levels of provision and support both inside and outside schools, music
has long been incorporated through multiple strands of the education system in England. As a foun-
dation, music has been part of the statutory school curriculum across Key Stages 1, 2 and 3 since its
inclusion in the National Curriculum in 1992. However, the National Curriculum is not compulsory in
academies or in free schools, though there is an expectation from Government via the Department for
Education and Ofsted that all state-funded schools provide a broad and balanced curriculum (Ofsted
2018, 2019).
Following the recommendation of the Henley Review (2011), the National Plan for Music
Education (NPME) was created with the aim that children from all backgrounds across England have
the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, learn to sing, make music with others and prog-
ress in developing their musical abilities (Department for Education, 2011). The NPME was launched
in 2012 and runs until 2020, with a ‘refreshed’ version expected from the Government in 2020. The
NPME introduced the concept of Music Education Hubs (Hubs) which built on the work of local au-
thority music services. Managed by Arts Council England, there are currently 120 Hubs which com-
prise local groups of organisations including schools, music services and local cultural organisations.
The Hubs were designed to augment and support music teaching in schools, through their ‘core’ and
‘extension’ roles (see DfE, 2011, p. 26).
Beyond these pillars of music education, there is a plethora of music education initiatives funded
by various sources including the Government, charities and foundations. In schools, there is often a
range of extra-curricular opportunities to learn and practice music in orchestras, bands and choirs,
which are usually free at the point of access. Finally, private instrumental tuition may be pursued by
those who can afford it, often measured by graded examinations.

I M P O RTA NC E O F M U S I C E D U CAT I O N ( A N D W H AT
DEFINES IT)

There are wide variations in the meaning and application of the term ‘music education’. Whilst
for some the term can focus on learning to play an instrument, a rich music education comprises
several areas of learning. The National Curriculum states that the aim is for all pupils aged 5–14
to perform, listen to, review and evaluate music across a range of historical periods, genres, styles
and traditions. Students are expected to learn to sing, create, and compose music, as well as under-
stand and explore how music is created, produced and communicated. The Curriculum also requires
that students are given the opportunity to learn a musical instrument and to progress to the next
level of musical excellence (Department for Education, 2013). According to the UK's All-Party
BATH et al.
|
     445

Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Music Education, children and young people's understanding of
music is about developing their knowledge of music and skills in music making through the core
musical activities of making and creating music (as performers, composers/producers and impro-
visers) and responding critically and in an informed way to music from a wide range of genres and
traditions (APPG, 2019, p. 6).
The importance of music's place in the curriculum has been argued through the lens of Biesta's
(2010) definition of a good education (APPG, 2019, p. 5). When examining the purpose of education,
Biesta states that a good education performs three functions: to produce a suitably qualified workforce
which can support the economic well-being of the nation (Qualification); to induct children and young
people into the values and norms of society including its cultures and traditions (Socialisation); and to
support children and young people to become autonomous, creative and individual thinkers and actors
(Subjectification) (Biesta, 2010). The authors of the APPG for Music Education's report argue that
a strong music education contributes to all three functions in the following ways: ‘Qualification’ in
music education ensures that there is a steady supply of performers, composer and arrangers that have
sufficient musical skills for employment; ‘Socialisation’ ensures that children know about and engage
with music in society; ‘Subjectification’ in music education is vital to meet the challenges of future
employment equipped with creative and innovative skills (APPG, 2019, p. 5). We can argue, then, that
music is part of a good education both within and for society.
The benefits of a music education are manifold and well-documented, particularly in broader
reviews of arts education (CASE, 2008; Crossick & Kaszynska, 2016). Several studies offer evi-
dence of the positive impact of music interventions on specific cognitive skills (Bugaj & Brenner,
2011; Costa-Giomi, 2004; Pitts, 2014, 2017; Schellenberg, 2012; Standley, 2008; Tierney & Kraus,
2013). One study found that playing an instrument led to greater progress and better academic out-
comes (Hallam & Rogers, 2016). Hallam's book The Power of Music synthesised numerous studies to
demonstrate the positive effect of music education on cognitive development such as aural perception
and language skills, auditory memory, literacy skills and spatial abilities (Hallam, 2014). Her re-
search also points to the evidence of enhanced non-cognitive skills due to music education, including
self-esteem, self-efficacy and motivation, in addition to improvements in mood and social cohesion
and numerous other qualities (Hallam, 2014). The role of the arts more generally in developing young
people's creativity has been identified extensively (CBI, 2018; Durham University & ACE, 2019;
Cullianane & Montacute, 2017).
Reflecting on Biesta's question of the purpose of a good education, a pervasive argument about
the instrumental and transferable benefits of music to other subjects has caused concern (Crossick &
Kaszynska, 2016). Critics have questioned why studying music is often argued as being beneficial to
studying mathematics, whereas it would be considered highly unusual to suggest the reverse. Crossick
and Kaszynska (2016) posit that this creates a hierarchy of disciplines and learning outcomes, rais-
ing questions about the value of each school subject and whether or how that value is recognised by
policy-makers.
One way in which policy-makers understand the value of music is in terms of its financial worth.
Music By Numbers stated that music contributed £5.2 billion gross value to the UK economy in 2018
(UK Music, 2019). Moreover, music plays a vital role in the creative industries, which were valued at
£111.7 billion in 2018 (DCMS, 2020). Another way of interpreting value that is gathering momentum
with policy-makers is the contribution of music and the arts to health and well-being (APPG, 2017;
Cultural Learning Alliance, 2019). This has been demonstrated by commitments to social prescribing
by the Health and Social Care Secretary (Department for Health and Social Care, 2019), and by the
funding of a major UK study into the impact of arts interventions on physical and mental well-being,
 |
446      BATH et al.

and the recent publication of a large-scale systematic review of 3,000 studies that highlighted the role
of the arts in improving health and wellbeing (Fancourt & Finn, 2019).
The value of music education, and arts education more broadly, is becoming increasingly rec-
ognised because of the creative skills that music and arts foster in view of the fourth industrial revo-
lution and age of automation. In his evidence to the Education Select Committee's inquiry, Andreas
Schleicher, Director of Education and Skills at the OECD, stated that art may become more important
than maths in the fourth industrial revolution (Education Select Committee, 2019). In Schleicher's
view, non-routine analytic skills such as problem solving as well as curiosity, persistence and resil-
ience, which are well-known to be developed through music and the arts, are increasingly important
to the future of employment. This idea is supported by a recent report which suggested that while
fifteen million jobs are at risk of automation in the UK, artists including musicians are at a low risk
of automation (1.49%) alongside doctors, surgeons, audiologists and occupational therapists (Frey &
Osborne, 2013).
Despite both compelling evidence and persuasive advocacy for a good musical education, several
significant shifts in education policy are well-evidenced as having detrimental effects on the access to
and delivery of music education in schools. It is to these threats that we now turn our attention.

T H R EATS TO MU SIC E D U CAT ION

When music was included in the National Curriculum in 1992 as a component of children's education
until the age of 14, this statutory requirement applied to state-funded schools which at that time were
almost exclusively under the purview of local authorities. Since then, there have been de-regulatory
changes to school structures in England, including the establishment of Academies and Free Schools
from 2010. According to the National Audit Office, 72% of secondary schools and 27% of primary
schools were academies or free schools in January 2018 (National Audit Office, 2018)—and these
schools are not required to follow the National Curriculum. This independence presents a huge chal-
lenge to music provision in state schools, as it effectively removes the statutory requirement. The
2011 Henley Review highlighted this risk:

There is a strong sense that the statutory requirement of being included in the National
Curriculum provides a basis for all other music provision in and out of school. Without
the obligation for music lessons to be a part of the school curriculum, there is a very real
concern that the subject might well wither away in many schools – and in the worst case
scenario, could all but disappear in others.
(Department for Education and Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2011, p. 15)

Curriculum narrowing: knowledge-based education and ‘core’ subjects

Education policy in England over the past decade has seen a significant shift towards a knowledge-
rich curriculum and ‘core’ subjects. Deeply influenced by the teachings of E. D. Hirsch on cultural
literacy, the Minister of State for School Standards since 2014—and before that Minister of State
for Schools from 2010 to 2012—has, by his own admission, steadfastly championed a knowledge-
based education (Department for Education, 2017). This landscape, promoting a knowledge-based
education above other types of learning including skills-based or experiential, has long been a cause
BATH et al.
|
     447

for concern among educators, particularly in creative and technical subjects. For music, Fautley and
Daubney's (2019) description of what music lessons should be clearly states that knowledge is only
one part of what constitutes musical learning:

Music is both a practical and academic subject. Musical learning is about thinking and
acting musically. This means that music lessons should be about learning in and through
music, not solely about music. Music lessons in school should be focussed on develop-
ing imagination and creativity, building up pupils' knowledge, skills and understanding.
(Fautley & Daubney, 2019, p. 3)

In alignment with the increased focus on knowledge-based education, English education policy has
seen a renewed prioritisation on so-called ‘core’ academic subjects such as English, maths and science,
and this has been a key factor in the marginalisation of creative and technical subjects from the curriculum
(Baker, 2016; Daubney & Mackrill, 2017; Spielman, 2018).
Curriculum narrowing in schools has been noted by key policy actors, including the government
Department for Education and Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, as well as by the
schools inspectorate Ofsted, and its Chief Inspector in particular. Chief Inspector Spielman (2018)
set out to address the negative practices of hollowing out a school curriculum to the extent that
schools only prioritise the subjects that get measured, and of teaching to the test. Ofsted's most recent
Inspection Framework was launched in September 2019 with a new Quality of Education judge-
ment to assess whether schools are providing a ‘broad and balanced curriculum’ that is sustained
and well-sequenced. In this context, there have been calls from sector organisations for Ofsted not
to award schools an ‘outstanding’ rating without a high quality music offer (APPG, 2019; Cooper,
2018; ISM, 2019).

Accountability measures and decline in provision

As research has demonstrated, there has been a dramatic decline in both the quantity and quality of
arts education in primary schools in England (Cooper, 2018). Teachers surveyed for Cooper's research
reported not only that they lack resources and skills to deliver lessons containing art and design,
music, drama and dance—discussed below—but that schools do not prioritise learning in these areas.
Cooper further notes that, at primary level, the curriculum is devoted primarily to the ‘core’ subjects
of English, maths and science, with ‘non-core’ subjects addressed only in the last twenty pages of the
National Curriculum (out of 200 in total); just two pages are concerned with art and design, two with
music, and zero with drama and dance as subjects in their own right; drama and dance are treated as
part of English and P.E. respectively (Cooper, 2018).
The pressure of standardised testing in the final year of primary school (Year 6) has had a further
negative impact on curriculum music provision. According to research by the Incorporated Society
of Musicians (2018, p. 9), for those primary schools where music is part of the curriculum, more
than 50% of responding schools did not meet their obligations to Year 6, citing pressure of statutory
tests as a significant reason for this. Curriculum narrowing at the expense of music and other creative
subjects was recognised by Ofsted's Chief Inspector Spielman in her 2018 commentary on Ofsted's
research:

We saw curriculum narrowing, especially in upper Key Stage 2, with lessons dispropor-
tionately focused on English and mathematics. Sometimes, this manifested as intensive,
 |
448      BATH et al.

even obsessive, test preparation for Key Stage 2 SATs that in some cases started at
Christmas in Year 6.

A further accountability measure for primary schools in England, the Reception Baseline Assessment,
was set to be made statutory in September 2020—though critics point to the lack of evidence from the
Government of the efficacy and reliability of testing children at the age of four, citing the different rates
at which young children develop social and cognitive skills (Goldstein, 2018; More than a Score, 2019).
The detrimental impact of accountability measures is not only mirrored, but augmented, in second-
ary schools (Daubney & Mackrill, 2017, 2018a, 2018b; Neumann, Towers, Gerwitz, & Maguire, 2016;
Savage & Barnard, 2019). Despite the statutory requirement of the National Curriculum to continue
teaching music in maintained schools across Key Stage 3 (until the age of 14), this provision is often
curtailed. Research has shown that music is no longer taught across Key Stage 3 in more than 50% of
state-funded secondary schools, including some maintained schools, and that this position is getting
progressively worse over time (Daubney & Mackrill, 2017; 2018a, 2018b). Further findings have re-
vealed that some pupils have little or no music education during their entire time at secondary school,
with music being offered as a one-off ‘enrichment day’, or experienced intermittently as part of a ‘car-
ousel’ offer—where music is only offered on rotation with other subjects (Daubney & Mackrill, 2017,
2018a, 2018b). Analysis of data in the Department for Education's workforce survey (Department for
Education, 2018a) has exposed that the number of taught hours of music at Key Stage 3 has fallen by
11.8% since 2010, and that only 3.1% of curriculum time is allocated to Key Stage 3 music (APPG,
2019). Many schools are opting for a 2-year Key Stage 3 to allow for a 3-year Key Stage 4 (at the
end of which students in England sit formal GCSE exams), something that Ofsted has also criticised
(Spielman, 2018). It is clear that this significant reduction in curriculum time for music and other arts
subjects at Key Stage 3 is predominantly due to the demands at Key Stage 4, particularly from subjects
belonging to the English Baccalaureate (Daubney & Mackrill 2017, 2018a, 2018b, APPG, 2019).
Perhaps the most controversial education policy since 2010 has been the introduction of the
English Baccalaureate (EBacc). The EBacc is a performance measure for schools to assess the per-
centage of students taking and passing the EBacc suite of subjects at GCSE: English Language,
English Literature, mathematics, at least two sciences, history or geography, and a modern or ancient
language. Crucially, music—along with other creative and technical subjects, as well as physical ed-
ucation (PE) and Religious Education—is not included in the performance measure. However, when
the EBacc was first announced by then-Secretary of State Michael Gove in 2010, music and art were
originally included in the suite of subjects as alternatives to history or geography (Gove, 2010). In the
Henley Review published the following year, Henley's fifth recommendation was to include music in
the EBacc, citing the risk otherwise that the subject may be ‘devalued’ (Department for Education and
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2011, p. 13).
At the time of writing, the Government's ambition is to see 75% of pupils studying the EBacc sub-
ject combination at GCSE by 2022, and 90% by 2025 (Department for Education, 2018b). In addition,
schools are assessed using accountability measures (namely Progress 8 and Attainment 8, introduced
in 2016) that scrutinise progress in a similar combination of subjects to the EBacc. The amount of cur-
riculum time given to EBacc subjects increased from 55% to 65% between 2010 and 2016 (Andrade &
Worth, 2017), and there is evidence that these accountability measures, in their prioritisiation of ‘core’
subjects, have reduced the amount of curriculum time devoted to music and other creative subjects at
Key Stage 4 (Daubney & Mackrill, 2017, 2018a, 2018b; Incorporated Society of Musicians, 2018).
One way this can be articulated is by calculating the decline in number of taught hours in music at
Key Stage 4, which has dropped by 9.5% between 2010 and 2017 (APPG, 2019). In some cases, music
GCSE has been pushed out of core curriculum time and taught after school, or removed as an option
BATH et al.
|
     449

altogether (Daubney & Mackrill 2018a, 2018b). In other rarer cases, music GCSE is offered by exter-
nal providers within the Hub network because a sufficient demand exists locally that cannot be met by
individual schools (Music Mark, 2019). This marks a worrying trajectory for music education, either
being outsourced or disappearing altogether.
A significant body of research has emerged in recent years tracking the decline in GCSE entries in
arts subjects including music since the introduction of the EBacc (APPG, 2019; Baker, 2016; Cultural
Learing Alliance, 2018; Daubney & Mackrill 2018a, 2018b; Johnes, 2017; Neumann et al., 2016;
Richmond, 2019). It has also been argued that Progress 8 and Attainment 8 accountability measures
have further contributed to the decline in uptake of creative subjects (APPG, 2019; Johnes, 2017).
According to the Education Policy Institute (EPI), entries to arts subjects by Key Stage 4 cohorts
declined between 2007 and 2016 to the extent that if in 2016 the same proportion of pupils had taken
at least one arts entry as in 2014, this would have resulted in around 19,000 more pupils accessing an
arts subject (Johnes, 2017).
In terms of entries to music GCSE, the APPG for Music Education's research using DfE data
shows that the number of GCSE entries in music fell by 20.4% between 2014 and 2018, and when
the number of entries is adjusted for cohort size, it fell by 16.7% (Figure 1). A survey of nearly 500
schools in England showed that 59% of respondents thought the EBacc has had a negative impact on
the provision of music; only 2.5% considered it had a positive impact (Daubney & Mackrill 2018a,
2018b). Some teachers reported that their schools were ‘guiding students away’ from music GCSE
to focus on EBacc subjects, particularly if they were deemed lower attaining and needing to attend
‘booster classes’ for those core EBacc subjects (Daubney & Mackrill 2018a, 2018b).
Despite compelling evidence of the detrimental impact of the EBacc, the Schools Minister has ar-
gued that uptake for music GCSE remains ‘broadly stable’ (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and
Sport Committee, 2019b) and Government targets for uptake of the EBacc persist. The Government's
position was reinforced by Ofsted in 2019 when it included the EBacc in its scope for school in-
spections. The revised Inspection Handbook states, ‘it is important that inspectors understand what
schools are doing to prepare for [the Government's EBacc targets] to be achieved, and they should take
those preparations into consideration when evaluating the intent of the school's curriculum’ (Ofsted,
2019, p. 43). Critics argue that the restrictive nature of the EBacc runs counter to Ofsted's expectation
for a broad and balanced curriculum in schools, and it is somewhat ironic that the EBacc statement
follows directly on from a statement that criticises curriculum narrowing (Ofsted, 2019).
A mounting academic and policy focus on the damaging effect of the EBacc on music and other
creative subjects has seen academics, educators, politicians and sector organisations call for the issue
to be addressed in various ways: adding arts subjects to the EBacc as a sixth pillar, conducting an

F I G U R E 1   Table of GCSE music entry figures using DfE data from 2014/15 to 2017/18
Source: APPG (2019) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
 |
450      BATH et al.

independent review of the EBacc and Progress 8, or abolishing the EBacc altogether. Of significance
to policymakers is the judgement of recent parliamentary reports which have called into question the
legitimacy and efficacy of the EBacc. Recommendations from the DCMS Select Committee included
adding arts subjects to the EBacc, citing ‘deep concern’ about the gap between the Government's
reassuring rhetoric and the evidence of the decline in music provision in state schools, for which
the EBacc is blamed (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2019a, 2019b).
Furthermore, one of the key influencing factors in the selection of subjects in the EBacc—the list of
Facilitating Subjects published by the Russell Group in 2007—has recently been withdrawn. The list
of Facilitating Subjects was reportedly drawn up with the intention of preparing students for A level
choices that would keep their options open for university degrees. However, since the abolition of such
a list in 2019, critics argue that the EBacc lacks justification.
Though the new approach by the Russell Group to broaden the potential uptake of A Levels has
been welcomed by educators, the damage to music in Key Stage 5 (the final years of compulsory
secondary education) has already taken hold. As GCSEs are a foundation for A Level study, the
restricted pool of music GCSE graduates due to the EBacc is partly to blame, compounded by sig-
nificant decreases in funding for schools and colleges (see Section 4.4 below). A Level music entries
have dropped by over 38% between 2010 and 2018 (APPG, 2019; Figure 2) and it has been claimed
that music is the fastest disappearing A Level subject (Association of School & College Leaders,
2018). A survey conducted by the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) found that the
number of schools and colleges offering A Level music between September 2016 and September 2018
dropped by 38%. Entries for music technology A Level have mirrored this decline; between September
2016 and September 2018 the number of schools offering A Level music technology fell by 31.8%
(Daubney & Mackrill 2018a, 2018b). This is perhaps unsurprising given the reduced pipeline of stu-
dents coming through.
However, additional research has shown that the decline in A Level music has not been mirrored
in independent schools. According to Whittaker et al. (2019, p. 1) independent schools account for
a disproportionately high number of A-level music entries when compared against national entry
statistics; the independent school population at Key Stage 5 accounts for 18.08% of the national
population but as much as 27.9% of A Level entry centres come from independent schools (2019, p.
14). This illustrates how funding and curriculum models intersect to sharpen societal inequalities in
access to music.

F I G U R E 2   Bar chart of entry figures from JCQ for GCE-level qualifications in music from 2011/12 to 2017/18
Source: Whittaker, Fautley, Kinsella, and Anderson (2019) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
BATH et al.
|
     451

The decline in uptake from students and provision from state schools is having a profoundly nega-
tive effect on those who teach music, so it is the workforce to which we next turn our attention.

Erosion and de-professionalisation of the workforce

Recruiting and retaining teachers is seen as vital to the Department for Education, as demonstrated by
the publication of their first ever ‘Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy’ in January 2019 which
claims that ‘there are no great schools without great teachers’ (Department for Education, 2019).
Research has shown, however, that the number of teachers has risen for certain subjects and declined
in others, namely arts subjects.
Analysis of the DfE workforce data has found that secondary school music teacher numbers
dropped by 1,000 between 2010 and 2017 (APPG, 2019; Figure 3). When compared to EBacc sub-
jects, there are striking results: across the same period, there was an increase of 1,600 maths teachers
and 900 English teachers. The number of history teachers rose by 11.3% and geography teachers rose
by 15.6% (APPG, 2019). Furthermore, the overall percentage of music teachers within the workforce
declined at a greater rate than across the total workforce, whilst the overall percentage of those teach-
ing EBacc subjects rose (APPG, 2019). This amplifies the argument that EBacc subjects are priori-
tised over non-EBacc subjects.
A recent study of changes in staffing levels for music education reported that the average number
of full-time (or equivalent) music staff is declining year-on-year (Daubney & Mackrill 2018a, 2018b).
In this survey, 35.8% of respondents reported falling staffing levels for music departments between
2016 and 2018/19 with only 14.6% stating levels had risen, and these were mostly in cases where
schools had increased their student capacity (Daubney & Mackrill 2018a, 2018b). Further evidence
of the decline in secondary music teacher numbers can be found in analysis of DfE workforce data
whereby the number of teachers have reduced by 12.7% at Key Stage 3, by 11.3% at Key Stage 4, and
by 22.6% at Key Stage 5 (APPG, 2019).
Looking beyond these figures to wider contextual factors reveals interesting trends. In state sec-
ondary schools, music departments are continuing to shrink to the extent that single-person depart-
ments are prevalent (ISM, 2019). This steady erosion of music departments is often hastened by music
teachers not being replaced as they retire or leave. Teachers who remain can experience professional
isolation and lack access to subject-specific professional development (APPG, 2019). It is also com-
mon to find secondary music teachers teaching outside of their subject area, typically because they

F I G U R E 3   Table of number of teachers using DfE workforce data

Source: APPG (2019) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
 |
452      BATH et al.

are required to fill gaps in the teaching of ‘core subjects’ (Daubney & Mackrill 2018a, 2018b). When
compared to the Schools Minister's statement that every child should be taught by ‘expert teachers’,
and Ofsted's assertion that children should be taught by ‘teachers who possess expert knowledge’,
there appears to be a contradiction between policy intention and the reality in many schools. There
is also a significant issue of chronic under-recruitment of music teachers, under-recruiting against a
reducing target consistently since 2012/13 (APPG, 2019). This is exacerbated by the closure of PGCE
secondary music programmes in ten UK universities since 2011.
At primary level, corresponding issues regarding the workforce are serving to undermine the
status of music in schools. The skills and confidence gap in relation to primary music teaching
has been identified and well-documented (APPG, 2019; Cooper, 2018; Hennessy, 2013; Zeserson,
Welch, Burn, Saunders, & Himonides, 2014). For generalist primary teachers, their training in
music on postgraduate courses is extremely limited, ranging between two and eight hours in total
(ISM, 2019). For specialist teachers, a dearth of undergraduate and postgraduate courses offering a
primary music specialism perpetuates the status of music as ‘unimportant’ and greatly increases the
challenge of meeting Henley's recommendation that ‘schools have teachers who…have the train-
ing, experience and tools to teach [cultural education] to a high level’ (Department for Education
and Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2011). This is mirrored in the lack of provision
of continuing professional development (CPD). The Carter Review (2015) recommended that the
DfE make funded in-service subject knowledge enhancement courses available for primary teachers
to access as professional development in a number of subjects including music. However, while
courses in some subjects identified in the Review have been established, there are no such courses
in music at the time of writing.
In Music Education Hubs, the focal point of issues concerning the workforce is employment terms
and conditions (APPG, 2019; Incorporated Society of Musicians, 2018; Musicians' Union, 2014; Savage
& Barnard, 2019). Music teachers in Hubs are mostly peripatetic teachers, a growing number of whom
are delivering the work of the Hubs on hourly paid, self-employed contracts and sometimes working
in schools paid directly by parents. ISM research has shown that peripatetic teachers are concerned
with the lack of regulation and precarious nature of their role, without job security or access to holiday,
a pension scheme, sick pay or maternity cover - a position which has reportedly declined since 2012
(Incorporated Society of Musicians, 2018). This has been described by the ISM as the ‘uberisation’ of
the Hub's teacher workforce which undermines the NPME's drive for sustainable and high-quality pro-
vision underpinned by a professional workforce (Incorporated Society of Musicians, 2018).

Funding

The provision and delivery of music education in schools and Hubs is seemingly plagued by chronic
under-funding. Numerous surveys and report findings demonstrate the lack of funding and resources
for music education, and in many cases budget cuts to music departments specifically in English
state-funded schools (APPG, 2019; Cooper, 2018; Savage & Barnard, 2019). According to Savage
and Barnard, many teachers cited a lack of funding as a reason for the decline in GCSE and A level
music uptake. Similarly, a lack of funding was given as an explicit reason for the significant decrease
in the number of students studying music technology courses because they require specialised facili-
ties and resources (Savage & Barnard, 2019). In primary settings, only 20% of responding teachers
believed that they had the required resources for music education in their schools (Cooper, 2018).
Cooper also points to regional disparity, with primary school teachers in the north of England ‘16%
more likely to feel there is a lack of resources than teachers in the east of England’ (Cooper, 2018,
BATH et al.
|
     453

p. 6). Beyond sources focused on music education, both the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the
Education Policy Institute (EPI) have noted that schools' costs have significantly outpaced inflation,
adding pressure on school budgets (Incorporated Society of Musicians, 2018); the average primary
school has lost £45,000 per year while 60% of state maintained primary schools have an expenditure
that is greater than their income (Andrews & Lawrence, 2018).
Prior to the introduction of Music Education Hubs in 2012, local authority music services in
England received £82.5 million in funding from the Department for Education (DfE). Funding for
Hubs from the DfE and distributed by Arts Council England has fluctuated between 2012 and 2020,
and has generally been lower than the amount provided for music services before 2012. In the 2018/19
financial year, the DfE provided £75  million for Hubs. In November 2019, it was announced that
one year of additional funding with a small uplift (approximately £79 million) would be available for
the financial year 2020/21 (ACE, 2019). However, Hubs are not exclusively funded by the DfE; the
second largest contributor to Hubs' budgets are schools, supported by smaller grants from the local au-
thority. These contributions from the local authority have declined year-on-year (Scott, 2018). Finally,
the future funding of Hubs beyond April 2021 is unknown at the time of writing, further jeopardising
the sustainability of music education.

T H E P LAC E OF MU S IC E D U CAT ION

Despite a broad consensus that music education is beneficial to children, there is a great deal of debate
not only about what constitutes a strong musical education (as discussed above) but also about where
it should belong.
As discussed in the introduction to this article, in the context of patchy and unequal provision and
the threat of music becoming the preserve of the privileged few, we have focused on where music is
free at the point of delivery. We have focused in more closely on the provision of classroom music
education in state-funded schools because this is where all children should access sustained music
education—a position that enjoys widespread support from the sector although this is not always the
case in practice. According to Henley, ‘schools remain the single most important place where children
learn about cultural education’ (Department for Education and Department for Culture, Media and
Sport, 2012, p. 8). In Sinclair's view, ‘school may be the first and only place that many children are
able to access arts’, so it is critical to ‘remain vigilant in protecting this right for all children’ (Cultural
Learning Alliance, 2019, p. 1). Sinclair goes on to warn that as things stand, there is a distinct possi-
bility that arts subjects ‘become the preserve only of those who can afford them’ (Cultural Learning
Alliance, 2019). Similar concerns were expressed by several parliamentarians in a recent House of
Lords debate on music education, with Lord Black warning that ‘rather than it being the fundamental
right of all children, music education is rapidly becoming the preserve of the privileged few at inde-
pendent schools, as it dies out in the state sector’ (Hansard, 2018, p. 602). It is therefore imperative
that extra-curricular cultural education complements classroom-based, curriculum-led music educa-
tion and does not replace it.
Beyond the commonplace belief among art educators, academics and campaigners that it is the
right of every child to have access to arts and culture, the Cultural Learning Alliance advocates that arts
education is a social justice issue (Cultural Learning Alliance, 2019). This was echoed by the DCMS
Select Committee who expressed ‘deep concern’ about the downgrading of arts subjects in schools,
‘with all the consequent implications for children's development, well-being, experiences, careers and,
ultimately, life chances’ (our emphasis, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee,
2019b, p. 7). The Schools minister has expressed that children with physical disabilities and special
 |
454      BATH et al.

needs must not be excluded from the arts (Gibb, 2017), though data analysis of the Hubs showed that
the number of students with a statement of SEN receiving Whole Class Ensemble Teaching (WCET)
fell by nearly 2% between 2015/16 and 2016/17 (Fautley & Whittaker, 2017, p. 23). The recently pub-
lished Durham Commission report stated that ‘to deny [students from disadvantaged backgrounds] is
not only educationally limiting but socially and morally unconscionable’ because it ‘reduces the like-
lihood of students from disadvantaged backgrounds building the kinds of creative skills they need now
and in the future’ (Durham University & ACE, 2019, p. 23). However, despite the well-intentioned
rhetoric, in practice there are significant differences between the most disadvantaged students and
their more affluent counterparts in their experience of music education and propensity to study music
beyond Key Stage 3 (APPG, 2019; BPI, 2019; Sutton Trust, 2014).

CO NC LU S IO N

Against the backdrop of shifts in education policy, there has been a significant decline in music
education in state-funded schools in England. We are particularly concerned that subjects have been
divided into ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ categories, stimulated by the prioritisation of English and maths
for standardised testing in primary schools and crystallised by the introduction of the EBacc and the
corresponding marginalisation of arts and technical subjects at secondary level. This dichotomy is not
only extremely damaging to the delivery of a broad and balanced curriculum that all children should
receive, but it is also based in falsehood. Schools can and should offer a rich music and arts curriculum
in conjunction with English, maths, sciences, humanities and languages so that students benefit from
the knowledge, skills and experiences afforded by a range of subjects. The value of music in the cur-
riculum is wide-reaching and to access it for free in school should be the right of every child.

R E F E R E NC E S
ACE. (2019). Music education hubs. London, UK: Arts Council England.
Andrade, J., & Worth, J. (2017). Changing the subject? How EBacc is changing school timetables. Slough, UK: National
Foundation for Education Research.
Andrews, J., & Lawrence, T. (2018). School funding pressures in England. London, UK: Education Policy Institute.
APPG for Music Education. (2019). Music education: State of the Nation. London, UK: All-Party Parliamentary Group
for Music Education, University of Sussex, Incorporated Society of Musicians.
APPG on Arts, Health and Wellbeing. (2017). Creative health: The arts for health and wellbeing. Retrieved from
http://www.artsh​ealth​andwe​llbei​ng.org.uk/appg-inqui​ry/Publi​catio​ns/Creat​ive_Health_Inqui​ry_Report_2017.pdf,
London. All-Party​Parli​ament​ary Group​on Arts, Healt​h and Wellb​eing
Association of School and College Leaders. (2018). Funding crisis puts A-level music and languages in peril. Retrieved
from https://www.ascl.org.uk/news-and-views​/news_news-detail.fundi​ng-crisi​s-puts-a-level​-music​-and-langu​ages-
in-peril.html
Baker, K. (2016). 14-19 Education: A new Baccalaureate. Birmingham, UK: Edge Foundation. Retrieved from https://
www.edge.co.uk/polic​y/polic​y-updat​es/14-19-educa​tion-a-new-bacca​laureate
Biesta, G. (2010). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism.
European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12109
BPI (2019). BPI calls on Government to tackle growing inequality in access to music in state schools. British
Phonographic Industry. Retrieved from https://www.bpi.co.uk/news-analy​sis/bpi-calls​-on-gover​nment​-to-tackl​e-​
growi​ng-inequ​ality​-in-acces​s-to-music​-in-state​-schoo​ls/
Bugaj, K., & Brenner, B. (2011). The effects of music instruction on cognitive development and reading skills: An
overview. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 189(2).
Carter, A. (2015). Carter review of initial teacher training. London, UK: Department for Education.
CASE. (2008). CASE: The Culture and Sport Evidence Programme, Arts Council England.
BATH et al.
|
     455

CBI. (2018). Educating for the Modern World. Education and Skills Annual Report. CBI/Pearson.
Cooper, B. (2018). Primary Schools: The decline of arts education in primary schools and how it can be reversed.
London, UK: Fabian Society, Children & the Arts, Musicians' Union.
Costa-Giomi, E. (2004). Effects of three years of piano instruction on children's academic achievement, school perfor-
mance and self-esteem. Psychology of Music, 32(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/03057​35604​041491
Crossick, G., & Kaszynska, P. (2016). Understanding the value of arts and culture: The AHRC Cultural Value Project.
London, UK: AHRC.
Cullianane, C., & Montacute, R. (2017). Life Lessons: Improving essential life skills for young people. London, UK:
Sutton Trust.
Cultural Learing Alliance (2018). Further decline in arts GCSE and A Level entries. Retrieved from https://cultu​ralle​
arnin​galli​ance.org.uk/furth​er-decli​ne-in-arts-gcse-and-a-level​-entri​es/
Cultural Learning Alliance. (2019). The Arts for Every Child: Why arts education is a social justice issue. CLA Briefing
Paper No. 5.
Daubney, A., & Mackrill, D. (2017). Changes in secondary music curriculum provision over time 2012–16: Summary of the
research presented to the APPG for Music Education 19 July 2017 Retrieved from https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webte​am/
gatew​ay/file.php?name=chang​es-in-secon​dary-music​-curri​culum​-provi​sion-2012-16-summa​ry-jan-2018.pdf&site=319
Daubney, A., & Mackrill, D. (2018a). Mapping music education in English secondary schools 2016–2018. Retrieved
from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/educa​tion/ctlr/activ​ity/semin​ararc​hive2​01718
Daubney, A., & Mackrill, D. (2018b). Changes in secondary music curriculum provision over time 2016–18: Summary
of the research. Retrieved from https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webte​ am/gatew​
ay/file.php?name=chang​es-in-secon​
dary-music​-curri​culum​-provi​sion-2016-18-novem​ber20​18.pdf&site=319
DCMS. (2020). UK's Creative Industries contributes almost £13 million to the UK economy every hour. Retrieved
from https://www.gov.uk/gover​nment​/news/uks-creat​ive-indus​tries​-contr​ibute​s-almos​t-13-milli​on-to-the-uk-econo​
my-every​-hour
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. (2019a). Live music. House of Commons. Retrieved from
https://publi​catio​ns.parli​ament.uk/pa/cm201​719/cmsel​ect/cmcum​eds/733/733.pdf
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. (2019b). Changing Lives: the social impact of partici-
pation in culture and sport. House of Commons. Retrieved from https://publi​catio​ns.parli​ament.uk/pa/cm201​719/
cmsel​ect/cmcum​eds/734/734.pdf
Department for Education. (2011). The importance of music: A national plan for music education. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/gover​nment​/publi​catio​ns/the-impor​tance​-of-music​-a-natio​nal-plan-for-music​-educa​tion
Department for Education. (2013). National Curriculum in England: Music programmes of study. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/gover​nment​/publi​catio​ns/natio​nal-curri​culum​-in-engla​nd-music​-progr​ammes​-of-study
Department for Education. (2017). Nick Gibb: The importance of knowledge-based education speech. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/gover​nment​/speec​hes/nick-gibb-the-impor​tance​-of-knowl​edge-based​-educa​tion
Department for Education. (2018a). DfE Statistics: School workforce. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/gover​nment​/
colle​ction​s/stati​stics​-schoo​l-workf​orce
Department for Education. (2018b). Guidance on the English Baccalaureate. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/gover​
nment​/publi​catio​ns/engli​sh-bacca​laure​ate-ebacc​/engli​sh-bacca​laure​ate-ebacc
Department for Education. (2019). Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/
gover​nment​/publi​catio​ns/teach​er-recru​itmen​t-and-reten​tion-strategy
Department for Education and Department for Culture, Media and Sport. (2011). Music Education in England: a review
by Darren Henley for the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved
from https://www.gov.uk/gover​nment​/publi​catio​ns/music​-educa​tion-in-engla​nd-a-revie​w-by-darre​n-henle​y-for-the-
depar​tment​-for-educa​tion-and-the-depar​tment​-for-cultu​re-media​-and-sport
Department for Education and Department for Culture, Media and Sport. (2012) Cultural Education in England: A
review by Darren Henley for the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Retrieved from https://assets.publi​shing.servi​ce.gov.uk/gover​nment​/uploa​ds/syste​m/uploa​ds/attac​hment_data/
file/26072​6/Cultu​ral_Educa​tion_report.pdf
Department for Health and Social Care (2019). Social prescribing: new national academy set up. Retrieved from https://
www.gov.uk/gover​nment​/news/socia​l-presc​ribin​g-new-natio​nal-acade​my-set-up
Durham University & ACE. (2019). Durham Commission on Creativity and Education. Durham, UK: Durham
University and Arts Council England.
 |
456      BATH et al.

Education Select Committee. (2019). Oral evidence: Fourth Industrial Revolution. House of Commons. Retrieved from
http://data.parli​ament.uk/writt​enevi​dence​/commi​tteee​viden​ce.svc/evide​ncedo​cumen​t/educa​tion-commi​ttee/fourt​
h-indus​trial​-revol​ution​/oral/97393.pdf
Fancourt, D., & Finn, S. (2019). What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scop-
ing review. World Health Organisation. Retrieved from http://www.euro.who.int/en/publi​catio​ns/abstr​acts/what-is-
the-evide​nce-on-the-role-of-the-arts-in-impro​ving-healt​h-and-well-being​-a-scopi​ng-revie​w-2019
Fautley, M., & Daubney, A. (2019). ISM – The National Curriculum for Music: A revised framework for curriculum,
pedagogy, and assessment in Key Stage 3 music. London, UK: ISM Trust.
Fautley, M., & Whittaker, A. (2017). Key data on music education hubs 2017. Birmingham, UK: Birmingham City
University.
Frey, C., & Osborne, M. (2013). The future of employment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Gibb, N. (2017). Nick Gibb: the importance of high-quality arts education. London, UK: Music and Drama Expo.
Retrieved from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/28523​/1/Nick%20Gibb_%20the​%20imp​ortan​ce%20of%20hig​h-quali​ty%20art​
s%20edu​catio​n%20-%20GOV.UK.pdf
Goldstein, H. et al. (2018). A baseline without basis: The validity and utility of the proposed reception baseline assess-
ment in England: Summary. London, UK: British Educational Research Association.
Gove, M. (2010). Speech to Westminster Academy. Department for Education. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/gover​
nment​/speec​hes/micha​el-gove-to-westm​inste​r-academy
Hallam, S. (2014). The power of music: A research synthesis of the impact of actively making music on the intellec-
tual, social and personal development of children and young people. London, UK: International Music Education
Research Centre (iMerc), University College London.
Hallam, S., & Rogers, K. (2016). The impact of instrumental music learning on attainment at age 16: A pilot study.
British Journal of Music Education, 33(3), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265​05171​6000371
Hansard. (2018). Schools: Music education. London, UK: House of Lords Hansard. Retrieved from https://hansa​rd.parli​
ament.uk/lords​/2018-10-18/debat​es/15CD7​958-6124-4E51-861D-CE7A3​8F4D4​AB/Schoo​lsMus​icEdu​cation
Hennessy, S. (2013). ‘Closing the gap. The generalist teachers’ role in music education'. In A. de Vugt & I. Malmberg
(Eds.), European Perspectives in Music Education Vol. 2. Innsbruck, Austria: CPI Moravia Books.
Incorporated Society of Musicians. (2018). Consultation on the Future of Music Education. Retrieved from https://
www.ism.org/news/the-ism-relea​ses-repor​t-on-the-futur​e-of-music​-educa​tion
ISM (2019). Ofsted publishes final version of its new inspection framework. London, UK: Incorporated Society of
Musicians. Retrieved from https://www.ism.org/news/ofste​d-publi​shes-final​-versi​on-of-its-new-inspe​ction​-frame​
work
Johnes, R. (2017). Entries to arts subjects at key stage 4. London, UK: Education Policy Institute.
More than a Score. (2019). Inappropriate, unhelpful and unnecessary: Heads deliver a damning verdict on the introduc-
tion of testing for four-year-olds. Retrieved from https://www.moret​hanas​core.org.uk/inapp​ropri​ate-unhel​pful-and-
unnec​essar​y-heads​-deliv​er-a-damni​ng-verdi​ct-on-the-intro​ducti​on-of-testi​ng-for-four-year-olds/
Music Mark. (2019). Music Mark members examine the crisis in secondary music at Symposium in Sheffield. Retrieved
from https://www.music​mark.org.uk/news/music​-mark-membe​rs-exami​ne-the-crisi​s-in-secon​dary-music​-at-sympo​
sium-in-sheff​ield/
Musicians' Union. (2014). Music Education Hubs: The real picture so far. London, UK: Musicians’ Union.
National Audit Office. (2018). Converting maintained schools to academies. Retrieved from https://www.nao.org.uk/
wp-conte​nt/uploa​ds/2018/02/Conve​rting​-maint​ained​-schoo​ls-to-acade​mies-Summa​ry.pdf
Neumann, E., Towers, E., Gerwitz, S., & Maguire, M. (2016). The effects of recent Key Stage 4 curriculum, assessment
and accountability reforms on English secondary education. Report from King's College London commissioned by
The National Union of Teachers. Retrieved from https://kclpu​re.kcl.ac.uk/porta​l/en/publi​catio​ns/a-curri​culum​-for-
all(129a4​75e-81de-4e92-b6ca-1c390​662d5​34).html
Ofsted. (2018). HMCI commentary: Curriculum and the new education inspection framework. Retrieved from https://
www.gov.uk/gover​nment​/speec​hes/hmci-comme​ntary​-curri​culum​-and-the-new-educa​tion-inspe​ction​-frame​work
Ofsted. (2019). School Inspection Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/gover​nment​/publi​catio​ns/schoo​l-­
inspe​ction​-handb​ook-eif
Pitts, S. E. (2014). Exploring musical expectations: Understanding the impact of a year-long primary school music proj-
ect in the context of school, home and prior learning. Research Studies in Music Education, 36(2), 129–146. https://
doi.org/10.1177/13211​03X14​556576
BATH et al.
|
     457

Pitts, S. E. (2017). What is music education for? Understanding and fostering routes into lifelong musical engagement.
Music Education Research, 19(2), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613​808.2016.1166196
Richmond, T.(2019). A Step Baccward: analysing the impact of the English Baccalaureate performance measure since
2010. EDSK.
Savage, J., & Barnard, D. (2019). The State of Play: A Review of Music Education in England 2019. Musicians' Union,
Music Industries Association, Music for All, UK Music.
Schellenberg, E. (2012). Cognitive performance after listening to music: A review of the Mozart effect. In R. MacDonald,
G. Kreutz, & L. Mitchell (Eds.), Music, health and wellbeing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Scott, E. (2018). Music Education in Schools: Debate on 18 October 2018. House of Lords Library Briefing.
Spielman, A. (2018). HMCI commentary: Curriculum and the new education inspection framework. London, UK:
Ofsted.
Standley, J. (2008). Does music instruction help children learn to read? Evidence of a Meta-Analysis. Update:
Applications of Research in Music Education, 27(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/87551​23308​322270
Tierney, A., & Kraus, N. (2013). Music training for the development of reading skills. Progress in Brain Research, 27.
Sutton Trust. (2014). Research Brief: Extra-curricular Inequality. Retrieved from https://www.sutto​ntrust.com/wp-conte​
nt/uploa​ds/2014/09/Extra​curri​cular​-inequ​ality.pdf
UK Music. (2019). Music by Numbers 2019. Retrieved from https://www.ukmus​ic.org/asset​s/gener​al/Music_By_
Numbe​rs_2019_Report.pdf
Whittaker, A., Fautley, M., Kinsella, V., & Anderson, A. (2019). Geographical and social demographic trends of A-level
music students: Report for the Royal College of Music and Royal Academy of Music. London, UK: Birmingham
City University.
Zeserson, K., Welch, G., Burn, S., Saunders, J., & Himonides, E. (2014). Inspiring Music for All: next steps in innova-
tion, improvement and integration. London, UK: Paul Hamlyn Foundation review of music in schools.

How to cite this article: Bath N, Daubney A, Mackrill D, Spruce G. The declining place of
music education in schools in England. Child Soc. 2020;34:443–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/
chso.12386