MU Response to Government Curriculum Review

10. What aspects of the current a) curriculum, b) assessment system and c) qualification pathways are working well to support and recognise educational progress for children and young people?  

The Musicians’ Union believes that the current National Curriculum for music covers the right content, is concise, and is applicable to different contexts and musical styles. We would not wish to see it significantly enlarged or changed, although please note our comments in response to question 23 on inviting a more diverse range of opinion. 

We believe that the second National Plan for Music Education (2022) outlines a clear and compelling vision for music education. The new government may wish to produce its own plan, but we support the ambitions of the 2022 plan and would like to see these retained. Our concern, however, is that the education described in the plan is not reaching a majority of learners. Our recommendations to address this would include making the plan statutory and introducing a robust accountability framework to monitor its delivery. On funding, we would wish to see the plan costed and multi-year funding allocated in line with the cost of delivery. 

Increasing numbers of schools are using music vocational and technical qualifications as an alternative to GCSE and A level music. These qualifications offer a different emphasis to GCSE and A level, with more flexibility and a greater emphasis on careers-based skills. While these qualifications do not replace GCSE and A level, they are valuable and should be supported. 

11. What aspects of the current a) curriculum, b) assessment system and c) qualification pathways should be targeted for improvements to better support and recognise educational progress for children and young people? 

The overall school curriculum under the last government was defined by a tension between so-called ‘core’ subjects and ‘non-core’ subjects. This was characterised by damaging and un-evidenced rhetoric around the limited value of some ‘non-core’ subjects, especially arts subjects, despite their huge value to the UK economy, intrinsic value, and contribution to the positive mental health and wellbeing of learners. 

This sent a message to schools that there was an exaggerated hierarchy among subjects that they needed to follow, which was emphasised by accountability measures, in particular the EBacc. The qualifications data suggest that this hierarchy correlates with a decline in uptake for arts subjects in schools. It also led to ‘non-core’ subjects being taught on carousel timetabling, which limits the extent to which learners can engage meaningfully with these subjects. 

We would like to see an end to the damaging labelling of ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ subjects. We believe that a broad, diverse school curriculum is the best route to providing an education that will enable children and young people to face the challenges of an increasingly complex world. A broad curriculum with a strong arts focus would also help ensure that the UK’s vibrant music and culture sectors are supported to continue, and that these are representative of all of society, regardless of learners’ socioeconomic status.  

The simplest way to end the damaging hierarchy of subjects would be to scrap the EBacc, which would cost nothing. This would free up schools to offer GCSE subjects that are best suited to their learners, rather than prioritising a narrow list of EBacc subjects. Carousel teaching of arts subjects should also be scrapped. 

We believe that the Model Music Curriculum, a non-statutory guidance document, should be de-emphasised. Many teachers have highlighted to us that it offers a prescriptive curriculum which encourages a fixed approach, rather than encouraging teachers to interpret the National Curriculum creatively to meet the needs of their own contexts. Additionally, it has been interpreted as overlooking and even trivialising some genres and musical traditions. 

We believe that the assessment system in schools relies excessively on written papers over more flexible options that would create a more inclusive and fairer assessment system, and that there is too much assessment overall. Music especially is often ill-suited to written assessment, and the government should draw on sector expertise to improve its guidance and policy here. 

The music qualifications pathway is under significant pressure. As GCSE and A level music entries decline, there is less incentive for awarding bodies to invest in and modernise these qualifications. This particularly applies to A level music, whose numbers are plummeting. 

We are disappointed that the terms of reference of this review describe T levels as ‘valued’. We see T levels as well intentioned but impractical and poorly thought through, with extremely low take-up and completion rates given the investment in them. Further, there is no music or arts-based T level. Given suggestions that T levels could replace many existing level 3 technical and vocational qualifications – which actually are valued by schools and learners – we are concerned that the music qualifications pathway could end up in a perilous state. 

We would also like to advise caution around graded music exams. These are valued by many, but they are small qualifications assessing narrow learning outcomes, and they are often privately funded and entered outside of schools. Graded music exam data should not be taken to show that learners are pursuing a broad programme of music learning in schools. Learners from some backgrounds might not even be aware of these qualifications due to the private study and funding needed to take them, creating a significant class and cultural barrier. 

Our recommendations to improve the music qualifications pathways would be to remove accountability measures that disincentive schools from entering GCSE music and other music qualifications, primarily the EBacc; ensure that assessment methods are sufficiently fair, inclusive and suited to the subject being assessed; work with awarding bodies to ensure that a range of qualifications are offered, with content that is up to date and relevant; view graded music exams with caution; and either scrap T levels or ensure that their continued support does not come at the cost of other well-used and valued qualifications at level 3. 

12. In the current curriculum, assessment system and qualification pathways, are there any barriers to improving attainment, progress, access or participation (class ceilings) for learners experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage?   

Progression in some genres of music, for example classical and any other genre that relies on developing high-level skills on a musical instrument, is nowadays mostly only open to learners who can pay for additional lessons either in or out of school. GCSE and A level music can be similarly exclusive due to their reliance on the ability to play an instrument. These issues then determine who can progress to higher education in music, and who can pursue a career in music, creating a significant class ceiling. 

Ofsted’s latest music report (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/subject-report-series-music/striking-the-right-note-the-music-subject-report) says: “In around half the schools we visited, there were no instrumental or vocal lessons. There were several reasons for this. In a few schools, leaders had not considered whether to offer these lessons or were unaware of the offer from the local music hub. More commonly, headteachers explained that they had decided not to offer lessons because, in their view, families could not afford them.” 

The Sutton Trust’s 2024 report A Class Act: Social mobility and the creative industries (https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/a-class-act/) says: “There are low proportions of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds on a range of creative degrees. This mirrors trends seen across higher education generally. For creative subjects, those from the most affluent backgrounds (discussed here as ‘upper-middle-class’) constitute very high proportions of students at the most prestigious institutions, and in key creative subjects like Music and Art.” 

Our recommendation is that whatever replaces the 2022 National Plan for Music Education truthfully acknowledges the problems around access to instrumental learning and how this affects progression to higher study and careers, and that it makes provision for this. 

13.  In the current curriculum, assessment system and qualification pathways are there any barriers to improving attainment, progress, access or participation which may disproportionately impact learners based on other characteristics (e.g. disability, sexual orientation, gender, race, religion or belief etc.)   

Disability can prevent learners accessing music education. We recommend consulting with experts in the field who have researched how children with different abilities can access music education and succeed. These experts include Drake Music, Youth Music, Open Up Music and Attitude Is Everything. Sounds of Intent (https://soundsofintent.org/en/home/index) is a framework for inclusive music making that we would also recommend. 

The assessment pathway for music is not always fully accessible for learners with disabilities. The government should consult with the above organisations and work with exam boards to ensure that disabled learners are fully able to access all music qualifications offered in schools and can be supported to reach the point of entry for qualifications through inclusive teaching. 

Training already exists to help music teachers work with disabled learners, for example: https://www.roehampton.ac.uk/study/postgraduate-taught-courses/music-and-children-with-special-needs-sounds-of-intent/ and https://bristolbeacon.org/whats-on/the-inclusive-practitioner-certificate-for-music-educators-24/ Training such as this could be made more widely available to help improve disabled learners’ experiences in music education.  

Music education in schools has not always acknowledged the full range of music that learners wish to engage with, although this is changing. To ensure that all learners are fully engaged, a clear message should be sent to schools that no genre of music is ‘better’ than another, and that all are welcome in schools. We believe that the Model Music Curriculum does not represent this position, hence our concerns raised in response to question 11. 

We believe there should be more pathways for learners to engage with their cultural heritage in schools, both in curriculum time and when taking music qualifications. This is not to say that there has not been some positive change here. RSL offers graded exams in gospel music, while MTB Exams offers graded exams in Sikh music. GCSE and A level boards should continue to look at how they can broaden their offer in order to value different musical traditions equally. 

We feel that the threat to remove some technical and vocational qualifications and replace these with T levels would disproportionately affect learners from ethnic minorities and poorer backgrounds. Technical and vocational qualifications are used by a more diverse pool of learners than GCSE and A level music because they do not always require a formal learning and qualifications background, which learners from some groups may have been excluded from. 

14.  In the current curriculum, assessment system and qualification pathways, are there any barriers in continuing to improve attainment, progress, access or participation for learners with SEND? 

Music is hugely beneficial to learners with SEND. Please refer to our response to question 13, which describes how disabled learners can be supported to access music education. 

15.  In the current curriculum, assessment system and qualification pathways, are there any enablers that support attainment, progress, access or participation for the groups listed above? 

Many teachers and schools, including special schools, do excellent work to ensure that learners of all characteristics and abilities can access music education. The organisations listed in our response to question 13 can provide examples and case studies. 

23. Are there particular changes that could be made to ensure the curriculum (including qualification content) is more diverse and representative of society?   

We mentioned the National Curriculum for music in our response to question 10. While we do not feel it requires significant overhaul, there may be scope for it to be updated through consultation with a more diverse range of stakeholders, to ensure that valuable cultural and musical practices are not unintentionally excluded from it. 

With qualifications content there is more scope for review. We currently see schools using technical and vocational qualifications as an alternative to GCSE and A level music because the former feel more practical and relevant to some learners in terms of skills and genres, and more accessible for those who may have been excluded from formal music education pathways for various reasons. We would therefore like to see a review of the content of GCSE and A level music to ensure that these qualifications are fully flexible in terms of genre, and to recognise the full breadth of learners’ creative ambitions, while retaining the required academic rigour. This should be done in consultation with experts from a wide range of musical practices to understand why some of these practices have previously been excluded from these qualifications, and to explore ways of introducing them. 

27. In which ways do the current qualification pathways and content at 16-19 support learners to have the skills and knowledge they need for future study, life and work and what could we change to better support this? 

We have referenced the need to retain technical and vocational qualifications in earlier responses. These support pathways into careers in music, while T levels do not currently. 

We would like to see schools give more consideration to the realities of 21^st-century creative careers that will be pursued by some learners, regardless of whether qualifications might cover this topic. We would recommend rolling out the Discover Creative Careers initiative (https://discovercreative.careers/) to more schools and providing more training for teachers. 

We referenced the inequality of access to instrumental lessons in our response to question 12, leading to a situation where only relatively wealthy learners can access certain musical careers. Our recommendation is to address this through targeted funding and policy. 

29. To what extent do the current secondary curriculum and qualifications pathways support learners to study a broad and balanced curriculum? Should anything change to better support this?  

We believe that the EBacc prevents secondary schools from offering a broad range of subjects at Key Stages 3 and 4 because it disincentivises schools from offering non-EBacc subjects, which include arts subjects. We recommend that the EBacc be scrapped because of this. 

We have commented in our responses to questions 10-15 on how the secondary curriculum and qualifications pathways could better support the delivery of a broad and balanced curriculum. 

30. To what extent do the current qualifications pathways at 16-19 support learners to study a broad curriculum which gives them the right knowledge and skills to progress? Should anything change to better support this?   

We have commented in our response to question 27 on the importance of preparing students for the realities of 21^st-century creative careers. We would reiterate those recommendations here. Learners should receive an open-minded education that covers creative experimentation, work skills, interviewing, auditioning, networking, work culture, wellbeing, and keeping safe in creative work environments. It is not clear that these themes are fully present in 16-19 education at the moment, although vocational routes are more likely to cover them. 

31. To what extent do the current curriculum (at primary and secondary) and qualifications pathways (at secondary and 16-19) ensure that learners are able to develop creative skills and have access to creative subjects? 

As the Musicians’ Union, our primary motivation in responding to this review is to ensure that all learners receive a high-quality music and arts education. As well as being intrinsically worthwhile, we believe that creative education equips leaners for a complex world and provides the engine for the UK’s hugely lucrative culture sector. UK Music’s This is Music 2024 report (https://www.ukmusic.org/research-reports/this-is-music-2024/) provides evidence of the enormous contribution made to the UK economy by music alone. 

We therefore consider that all responses we have provided to this review are geared towards ensuring that learners can access creative subjects, in particular music, as part of their educational entitlement. 

32. Do you have any explanations for the trends outlined in the analysis and/or suggestions to address any that might be of concern?  

We believe the EBacc has disincentivised schools from offering music and arts subjects at GCSE. This impacts on the pipeline to these subjects at A level but also the extent to which music and arts subjects are taught seriously and in depth at Key Stage 3. We have covered the EBacc in our responses to questions 11 and 29, so please refer to those comments also. 

33. To what extent and how do learners benefit from being able to take vocational or applied qualifications in secondary schools alongside more academically focused GCSEs?    

We have provided comments on the importance of vocational and technical qualifications in several earlier responses. In summary, we believe these make a valuable contribution to music education, and we have been concerned by proposals to limit or defund them. 

39. Is the volume of assessment required for GCSEs right for the purposes set out above? Are there any changes that could be made without having a negative impact on either learners’ learning or the wider education system? 

We need to take great care when assessing music via written papers. Some knowledge of music can be captured this way, but there are so many other aspects of music that cannot be. There is significant sector expertise that the government could draw on to ensure that the balance between written and other forms of assessment is appropriate in music. 

40. What more can we do to ensure that: a) the assessment requirements for GCSEs capture and support the development of knowledge and skills of every young person; and b) young people’s wellbeing is effectively considered when assessments are developed, giving learners the best chance to show what they can do to support their progression?  

Please refer to our comments in response to question 39. In addition, wellbeing is an important consideration. We know that wellbeing concerns for aspiring young musicians include perfectionism and stress from competition, as well different levels of acceptance and validation for different musical genres and practices. Qualifications should be sensitive to these concerns and provide flexible routes to give every learner the best possible chance to succeed. 

42. Are there ways in which we could support improvement in pupil progress and outcomes at key stage 3? 

We have referred to carousel teaching in our response to question 11. We believe this should be scrapped as it limits learners’ ability to engage meaningfully with the subjects being taught. 

We have referred to the EBacc in several earlier responses. The EBacc creates a significant barrier for schools, discouraging them from offering GCSE courses across a broad range of subjects, including arts subjects. For this reason, we believe it should be scrapped. 

44. To what extent, and in what ways, does the accountability system influence curriculum and assessment decisions in schools and colleges?  

Please refer to earlier comments on the EBacc, which we believe severely restricts curriculum and assessment decisions.  

45. How well does the current accountability system support and recognise progress for all learners and learners? What works well and what could be improved?   

Please refer to earlier comments on the EBacc, which we believe restricts progress in arts subjects for all learners. 

49. How can we improve learners’ understanding of how the different programmes and qualifications on offer will prepare them for university, employment (including apprenticeships) and/or further technical study?  

Please refer to comments made in our responses to questions 27 and 30.  

51. Are there additional skills, subjects, or experiences that all learners should develop or study during 16-19 education, regardless of their chosen programmes and qualifications, to support them to be prepared for life and work?  

Please refer to comments made in our responses to questions 27 and 30.  

53. How could technology be used to improve how we deliver the curriculum, assessment and qualifications in England?   

It is almost impossible to provide a broad and high-quality musical education without including technology. Many musical genres rely on technology to create them, while recording and editing skills are useful for all genres. Technology can also make teaching adaptive and inclusive, which is at the core of the work of organisations listed in our response to question 13. The curriculum and qualifications should reflect these points. 

The government should recognise that some music teachers come from a classical background and may need additional training to use technology as described above. 

54. Do you have any further views on anything else associated with the Curriculum and Assessment Review not covered in the questions throughout the call for evidence? 

The review has not asked about teacher recruitment. It is important to note that the last government missed its own targets for music teacher recruitment for several years running. We believe that the issues this review is attempting to address cannot be tackled separately from the shortage of teachers in certain subjects, including music. We would also like to see government adopt a measurable strategy to ensure a more diverse music teacher workforce. 

The review has not asked about teacher training. It is common for primary teachers to receive just one day’s training on music – or even less – in their initial training. This has been a longstanding problem that successive governments have failed to address. We believe that the issues this review is attempting to address cannot be tackled separately from the issue of teacher training. 

The review has not addressed the quantity and diversity of music courses available at HE level and whether this is affected by, or affects, curriculum and assessment decisions at school level. We believe that the EBacc and insufficient funding and accountability for the aims of the National Plan for Music Education – among other issues like teacher shortages – have led to a decrease in learners applying for music courses at HE level, causing the closure of several courses. We believe that many of our recommendations, if implemented, would help reverse this. A vibrant HE music sector would then be able to provide more support to schools in a mutually beneficial arrangement. 

The Musicians’ Union is a member of UK Music (https://www.ukmusic.org/), which has supplied its own detailed response to this review with a greater quantity of evidence and data than we have been able to provide here. We support their response and ask that you refer carefully to the data they have provided. We have focused here on sharing our members’ concerns which are based on lived experience and are not always described in research or data form.