Selection and equity in Standard Grade Music
Peter Cope, Hugh Smith
Institute of Education, University of Stirling
Moray House Institute of Education, University of Edinburgh
Paper presented at the Scottish Educational Research Association Annual Conference
(September 24-26 1998: West Park Conference Centre, Dundee)
(Hugh Smith is now Headteacher at North Walls Community School, Lyness, Hoy, Stromness, KW16 3NX.)
Abstract
In most respects, Standard Grade Music can be seen as a success. It has changed the ethos of school curricular music away from an elitist classical model to one which is far better attuned to the interests of pupils. It rests, however, on a provision of instrument instruction which in which pupils may be treated quite differently on the basis of an early selection process. Pupils taking Standard Grade music fall into two categories. In the first category, pupils are given free tuition on a one-to-one basis or in small groups by a visiting specialist for their solo performance instrument. These lessons are additional to curricular music lessons. Pupils in the second category are taught during curricular music lessons by the class teacher. They get no individual tuition and their choice of instrument is usually limited to keyboards, drumkit or tuned percussion. They are not loaned an instrument and they are unable to practise at home unless they own one themselves. Access to the superior category of provision is limited and is governed by selection tests which are usually based on simple estimates of "musical ability". Data from the SQA Standard Grade show that pupils in the former group, not surprisingly, get higher grades for the solo performance aspect of their course. We suggest that these data illustrate a self-fulfilling prophecy in which inequitable provision, sustained by unfair selection, is justified by the results of the significantly enhanced tuition.
Introduction
A great deal of effort has gone into the reform of mainstream curricular music in schools. A brief history of the reforms was given at last year’s SERA by Sheridan and Byrne (1997) who charted the development of music education during this period and show that the new curricular music has been considerably more successful than the old in terms of pupil uptake. The ethos of school curricular music has now moved away from an elitist classical and passive model to one which is activity based and far better attuned to the interests of pupils. But these fundamental changes in ethos do not seem to have permeated the curriculum for instrument tuition. Our own children’s instrument lessons, and the context in which they take place, are indistinguishable in most respects from our experiences as pupils some twenty to thirty years ago, with one major exception – our lessons were free.
The features of musical instrument tuition vary depending on the local authority but, generally speaking, they are as follows:-
- there is a selection process which usually claims to be based on musical ability
- tuition is on a one-to-one basis or in small groups
- instruments are provided on loan, initially at least (rental or purchase may be encouraged later)
- the curriculum is formal and largely based on classical music
- there is a fee which varies widely between the different authorities
- the fee is waived for children who are being taught their S Grade solo instrument
One of the problems in this area is the selection of pupils for instrumental tuition. There appears to be no systematic research of the different methods used across the country and there is a wide variation between those who use a very basic test of musical ability and those who take into account the wider context including potential parental support. Research into the predictors of success in learning to play an instrument suggests that the latter are likely to be more successful. O’Neill (1997)has shown that musical ability is not a good predictor of success but that persistence in the face of difficulties is. This is important because persistence can be nurtured and supported. Musical ability is widely thought of as being fixed and immutable although Sloboda’s research (Sloboda, Davidson and Howe, 1994) suggests that this is a misconceived view.
The selection can be a critical event because selection involves exclusion as well as inclusion. One must, therefore, be concerned about the consequences for those who are given the message that they are not up to the task of learning an instrument, and it is not difficult to find stories about the feelings of injustice and inadequacy which results from such a decision. However, the other major effect of selection, in the context of Standard Grade music, is that it provides access to privileged provision on a mainstream SQA course. Selection may take place at various stages in a pupil’s school career but it commonly occurs at transition points such as S1. At this stage, there is normally a fee to be paid so there is a strong disincentive for many children to take advantage of the tuition, even if they pass the selection. But if they do put themselves forward, and if they pass the selection tests, and if they can pay the fees, there are many advantages to pupils who are intending to take S Grade Music. Being selected means that pupils may borrow an instrument, and that, while they are doing the S Grade course they get free tuition. This means that substantial extra support, directed towards a significant element of their S Grade assessment, becomes available. If pupils are not selected, or if they do not put themselves forward for selection, or if they cannot pay the fees (assuming that the selection takes place before the S Grade course starts) then they cannot usually borrow an instrument. If they go on to take S Grade Music, they will get tuition from the mainstream music classroom teacher during mainstream music lessons, rather than extra lessons on a one-to-one or small group basis.
One might ask whether the advantage gained by the additional tuition results in a better outcome for the pupils concerned. In order to investigate this, the Solo Performance grades for a representative sample of the 1997 S Grade Music cohort were examined. The sample was provided by the SQA and was selected from fifty schools, both urban and rural, to give a stratified random sample of around 4.5%, by instrument and location. There were 8,500 candidates presented in 1997 and there were 340 pupils in the sample. Grades for voice have been excluded from this analysis.
Grade distributions
Examination of the spread of the grades for each instrument reveals a striking difference between instruments. Essentially, the grade distribution falls into two patterns. For some instruments, the grades are concentrated between awards of 1 and 3 with more pupils scoring 1s than 2s and more pupils scoring 2s than 3s. The distribution of grades for brass instruments is typical of this pattern.
The second pattern of distribution is more evenly spread across the grades. There are still more higher grades than lower grades but the performance of these pupils is clearly of a different order. The distribution for tuned percussion illustrates this distribution.
Pattern one grade distributions are shown by the following instruments:-
Accordion
Bagpipes
Brass
Harp
Piano
Strings
Woodwind
Pattern two is shown by the following instruments:-
Keyboard
Tuned Percussion
Snare Drum
Interestingly, the guitar shows a hybrid distribution with some high grades but a larger tail than the other pattern one instruments.
The contrast between the two patterns can be demonstrated by direct comparison betweenm examples of each. Keyboard and piano, for example, although ostensibly similar in demand and technique, produce the following differences in distribution.
Tuned percussion and strings make another interesting contrast.
Preliminary statistical analyses (using 2 tests) show that the differences between the pattern one and pattern two instruments are significant at the 5% level at least.
Discussion
One obvious feature of pattern one instruments is that they are the ones for which lessons are usually given on an individual or small group basis (whether by local authority provision or by private tuition) whereas those following pattern two grade distributions are largely instruments which are taught by the class teacher.
There are several possible explanations for these contrasting patterns of grades.
1) The better grades shown by pattern one instruments is a result of better resourcing of the tuition of these instruments (small groups or one-to-one teaching, for example) .
2) The better grades shown by pattern one instruments demonstrate that the selection processes used are, in fact, working effectively to identify the most talented children.
3) There is a strong labelling effect in which a self-fulfilling prophecy determines the performance of pupils playing pattern two instruments.
4) Pattern two instruments are not regarded as authentic by the pupils who are learning to play them.
5) Some combination of the above.
It is hard to conclude that the improved grades are not a result of better teaching. Classroom music teachers make strenuous efforts to overcome the disadvantages that they face but formal instrument instruction continues to have class sizes and opportunities for individual attention of which other subjects should be envious. There seems to be no reason why this tuition should be so unfairly apportioned other than a conservative elitism which still pervades the playing of musical instruments. It tends to be assumed that playing musical instruments requires innate talent and that shortage of resources justifies restricting genuine tuition to the talented. Most classroom music teachers would dispute this view but the extent to which it is held generally is illustrated by a recent discussion we had with a primary school teacher about the allocation of a group of children into two classes for the purposes of recorder lessons. The top class consisted initially of 6 children of whom one was rejected because s/he was not good enough. There were 46 children in the other class – taught by a single teacher.
Such circumstances are perfectly structured for the operation of self-fulfilling prophecy. Some pattern two children may have failed selection tests for instrument tuition but even if they did not opt to take these tests, the public performance aspect of S Grade Music lessons is an ideal setting for labelling to take place. Normally there will be, at regular intervals during the course, a solo performance by each child in front of the rest of the class. It is not difficult to imagine how demotivating this must be for a child who has had some class instruction in tuned percussion if they have to follow the performance of a peer who is receiving individual tuition on a violin or a trumpet.
There is also the question of the authenticity of the instruments concerned. Tuned percussion is a class of instrument which has a major role in schools because of ease of access but such instruments are rarely played in the outside world. Authenticity may also go some way to explaining the hybrid pattern shown by the guitar (although this might also be due to the fact that the tuition for the guitar may be a mixture of private tuition and class teaching). It is harder to make the same argument for keyboards since they do tend to have a significant place in what pupils might perceive to be real music. The significance of authenticity requires more research in which the children themselves are asked what they think about the relative merits of the different instruments.
Finally, there is the question of selection. Although these results could be interpreted as indicating that selection is an effective means of channelling resources to the right pupils, the alternative explanations are more plausible, particularly when the role of so-called musical ability in the success of a young player is open to question (Cope, 1998). Selection damages those who are rejected by the process. Again, we require more research about the types of selection which are being used and about the effects on those who are turned away as well as those who are accepted.
It is true that resources are restricted in this area (as in many others), but when this is the case, we should look for more imaginative ways of deploying them in order to give all children a fair chance. Classroom teachers of music can only struggle against a system which is stacked against them as they strive to deliver an instrument curriculum suitable to the range of children who opt for Standard Grade Music. As Sheridan and Byrne (1997) pointed out, Standard Grade Music has, in many ways, been a success. But until the inequity which underpins this crucial aspect of the curriculum has been addressed, many children will be prevented from attaining their full potential. This is a shame - music is too important to be restricted to a small elite.
References
Cope P. (1998) Knowledge meaning and ability in musical instrument playing, British Journal of Music Education 15, 301-308.
O'Neill S. (1997) The role of practice in children’s early musical performance achievement, in: H Jorgensen & A.C. Lehmann (Eds) Does Practice Make Perfect? Current Theory and Research on Instrumental Music Practice (Oslo, NMH-publikasjoner)
Sheridan M. & Byrne C. (1997) Music: A Source of Deep Imaginative Satisfaction? Paper presented to the Scottish Educational Research Association Conference, University of Dundee.
Sloboda, J., Davidson, J.W. & Howe, M.J. (1994) Is everyone musical? The Psychologist, August 1994, 349-354
1