ISM Rejects Classroom Assistant Proposals

1. As the UK’s professional body for musicians, whether performers, teachers, composers, lecturers, therapists or musicologists, the primary focus of our response to these proposals is on the implications for music teaching in schools.

2. Firstly, however, we would comment on the underlying premise that extending the role of support staff will decrease workload for teachers generally. That steps are being considered to reduce teachers’ workload is positive and necessary, but recent research (Teaching Assistants in Schools: The Current State of Play, LGA Research Report 34, National Foundation for Educational Research, 2002) has shown that teaching assistants in primary schools do not necessarily reduce teachers’ workload, due to the additional responsibilities involved in managing and planning the work of assistants.

3. The proposals appear to be based on the assumption that there are certain subjects, including music, which can be treated differently from other curriculum subjects. Music is no different from other subjects; effective music teaching at any level requires a high level of technical and academic knowledge and skill. To suggest that music can be taught by support staff not only demeans it as a curriculum subject but also seems to disregard the findings of a recent survey (reported in the Times Educational Supplement, 1 November 2002) indicating that primary teachers lack confidence in teaching music and need more back-up from qualified specialist teachers. This lack of confidence does not show that teachers are uncomfortable with the substance of what they are required to teach. Rather, it is an indication of the base of technical expertise that is a pre-requisite for teaching music effectively – for example, in explaining even the most elementary musical conventions, whatever the genre under discussion. It is also an argument for more qualified specialist music teachers in our schools, not for delegation to teaching assistants.

4. The term ‘music specialist’ is used in the consultation document, but without definition. It is certainly the case that many professional and qualified musicians can effectively lend support to individual projects in schools, and there are many excellent examples of projects involving musicians visiting schools and demonstrating not only their professional expertise but also providing valuable and inspirational role models for young people. The most successful projects, however, have usually involved full collaboration and follow-through with the school and teachers, and have been integrated into the curriculum of the school. There is no doubt that such projects, when well run, can be a valuable dimension to music education in schools. They should not, however, be a substitute for music taught within the school curriculum by qualified music teachers.

5. The ISM would argue that the pedagogical and technical knowledge and skill required for effective class teaching of music is greater than that implied by a supporting role. Indeed, for instrumental and vocal teaching – whether taught one-to-one or in small groups – the level of professional skill required is normally far higher than the NVQ levels 2 or 3 for teaching assistants referred to in paragraphs 54 and 55. Many instrumental teachers are graduates of conservatoires or universities, or hold professional performing or teaching diplomas, which are now being considered for accreditation at levels 4 or 5 within the National Qualifications Framework. Degree-level qualifications should be a pre-requisite for class teaching of all curriculum subjects, including music, but it should also be recognised that other music specialists, as holders of degree-level qualifications, are qualified and competent professionals in their own right. We do not wish to see a two-tier system emerge where music teachers who do not hold Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) are relegated to a subsidiary role. There should be increased flexibility to enable professionally qualified music teachers to progress to training leading to QTS if they so wish. In this respect, accreditation of prior experience and learning (APEL) for QTS courses should remain as such, but other qualifications should enable all music educators in schools to be accorded equivalent professional status to those with QTS.

6. Returning to the lack of competent and confident teachers, in particular at Key Stages 1 and 2 but also more generally at Key Stage 3 and beyond, the solution should not lie in employing more teaching assistants, but in recruiting and training more specialist music teachers. Music has been identified by the Teacher Training Agency as a shortage subject, although it is not currently afforded all the specific incentives, such as ‘golden hellos’, that other shortage subjects enjoy. It is not encouraging to learn that registrations for 2002-03 for undergraduate and postgraduate courses of initial teacher training (ITT) in music have declined by 8% on the 2001-02 statistics.

7. We maintain that the requirement for generalist teachers at Key Stages 1 and 2 to train in a specialist subject should not have been removed, and that class teachers should be trained to give primary children positive experiences of both music and drama. The option should be available for trainee teachers to gain specialist musical skills for whole-class teaching at Key Stages 1 and 2 so that the progression of pupils to the National Curriculum at Key Stage 3 is assured, ultimately enabling more young people to take up music at GCSE and A level.

8. We would urge that the proposals are re-drafted so that music teaching is not relegated to a support function and the status of teaching as an all-graduate profession is not undermined.

ISM, JANUARY 2003