Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T06:01:19.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Music National Curriculum: Overcoming a Compromise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Abstract

The 1995 Music National Curriculum orders represent a significant change from the Interim Report of 1990 in which the Music Working Group presented its findings and made recommendations to the Secretary of State for Education for a new curriculum. This article explores developments which have led from the original recommendations to the 1995 Curriculum. As it now stands, the curriculum does not develop children's musical skills and understanding in a systematic way. This is not helpful, even to the music specialist, but also it gives rise to another problem. At Key Stages 1 and 2, where there is possibly no music specialist to interpret it, and where generalist class teachers have traditionally felt ill-equipped to teach music, the 1995 curriculum – because it does not prescribe the work to be done in a systematic and developmental way – fails to make clear the achievements expected at the various levels. Therefore, it does nothing to persuade primary teachers that they can contribute usefully to the skill- and knowledge-development which is essential if children are to move systematically through their musical education. Indeed, the Programmes of Study are so lacking in any sense of development or skill-building that they are exactly the same for each of the first three Key Stages. This study looks at the causes of these difficulties and proposes an original scheme of work to address the problem of teacher confidence at Key Stage 1.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bodman, C. (1992). Measuring up. Music Teacher, 71, 12, 1819.Google Scholar
Davies, C.V. (1992). Young Children As Song Makers: a study of some musical processes in the invented songs of children aged 5 to 7. Unpubl. D.Phil thesis, University of York.Google Scholar
Department for Education (1995). Music in the National Curriculum. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Education and Science [DES] (1985). Music from 5 to 16 (Curriculum Matters 4 / an HMI series). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Education and Science [DES] (1990). National Curriculum Music Working Group. Interim Report. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Education and Science [DES] (1991). Music for Ages 5 to 14. Draft Proposals for National Curriculum Final Orders. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Education and Science [DES] (1992). Music in the National Curriculum. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Loane, B. (1984). On ‘Listening’ in Music Education. British Journal of Music Education. 1, 1, 2736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (1993). Learning to Listen. Music Teacher, 72, 6, 811.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (1995). Ringing the Changes. Music Teacher, 74, 2, 1823.Google Scholar
Major, A. (1993). A Matter of Skill. Music Teacher, 72, 8, 811.Google Scholar
Mills, J. (1989a). The Generalist Primary Teacher of Music: a problem of confidence. British Journal of Music Education, 6, 2, 125138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, J. (1989b). Developing Listening Through Composing. Music Teacher, 68, 3, 911.Google Scholar
National Curriculum Council [NCC] (1992). Non-Statutory Guidance: Music. York: NCC.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, L. (1992). Key stage-struck!: Assessment and Class Music Making. British Journal of Music Education, 9, 3, 201209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paynter, J. (1992). Sound and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swanwick, K. (1988). Music, mind, and education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar