‘Lowering the bar’ or widening access? Reflections on key findings from a music literacy project commissioned by the Society for Music Analysis

ABSTRACT

In 2019 the Society for Music Analysis commissioned a report to find out if stakeholders in music education agreed that knowledge and/or skills in music literacy had declined for those applying to study music at university in England. The ensuing mixed methods study collected data from a range of stakeholders through interviews (N = 33), questionnaires (N = 233), a Music Literacy Study Day and informal observation. The findings showed that many participants thought that music literacy, if defined more narrowly, had declined in recent years. In addition, views on priorities in music education differed considerably, aligning with different forms of social justice. Some participants considered the bar to have been lowered in general music education, leading universities to alter their practices to facilitate access. This article reflects on those findings. The authors conclude that there needs to be careful consideration of curricula to prevent taking knowledge and skills away unnecessarily while ensuring that updated curricula are coherent and relevant to contemporary concerns about music education.

KEYWORDS:

• Music literacy
• music curriculum
• music pedagogy
• social justice

Background to the project

This article is based on research commissioned by the Society for Music Analysis (SMA) in 2019, culminating in a substantial report (McQueen 2020). The impetus for the commission was an awareness amongst Trustees of the SMA, the majority of whom teach in UK universities, of an apparent reduction in knowledge of music theory and analytical skills of students applying for and gaining places on music degree courses. The trustees assumed those skills required what they referred to as music literacy, which they took to mean the traditional skills of being able to read and write Western classical music notation, and to being able to understand classical harmonic progressions. Strategies put in place by universities to address the apparent shortfall in knowledge and understanding included (either alone or in combination) reducing the entry requirements for music literacy skills, thereby widening access; altering degree course content to reduce or remove the requirement for music literacy; or retaining some music literacy skills as part of the curriculum but devising additional support or modules to ‘fill the gap’. Hilary McQueen (who is referred to in what follows as the Researcher) was appointed to research the perceived gap, underpinned by key questions set out by the SMA. Esther Cavett was the SMA trustee critical friend for the Project, referred to here as the Collaborator. For practical reasons, the report focused largely on teaching in England, rather than the whole of the UK or beyond. We should emphasise that in designing the research, and in our reflections on it, we did not assume that reading Western notation and associated theoretical literacy is the only or necessarily correct emphasis for music education across all levels.

Challenges and concerns in music education

A decline in musical knowledge and skills in students commencing higher education is likely to be the consequence of both what and how they were previously taught. Debates around the justification for teaching students to read and write Western classical musical notation in order to study the classical canon are not new as the following quote from the Plowden Report (1967, 253) shows:

Some teachers believe that learning to read music increases difficulties and diminishes enjoyment, whereas the contrary is true. Literacy must, however, be closely related to active music-making; it must be functional, not theoretical.

In her report, Bridget Plowden comments on the neglect of what she refers to as music literacy and advocates a better music training for general teachers in primary schools and for quality music education for all, matters of concern that remain relevant today (see e.g. Ibbotson 2022).

Perhaps more than is the case for most if not all other school subjects, young people bring very different experiences of music to the classroom. Virtually all will have been exposed to film and video game music, and to background music in various popular styles in public places. However, some students will have had private music lessons outside school or be involved in informal music making (choir at church, playing or singing in bands, folk music), and children may have very different cultural home backgrounds involving different listening experiences. Therefore, music teachers must contend with very different levels of interest, knowledge, and skills. In addition to creating inclusive performance and composition opportunities for all, music teachers also need to teach music as an academic subject, including preparing young people for tests in music at school and supporting the few who hope to continue their musical studies in further or higher education. Another factor teachers must consider is how to engage with digital music. There may be practical constraints (for instance, lack of equipment) on how far pupils can be supported to develop digital literacy in music in the classroom; in addition, teachers may not have the skills to teach digital literacy (see e.g. Savage 2012).

Although it might seem logical that decisions about the substantive content of what is taught come before thoughts about how to teach it, as Cuthbert and Standish (2021) assert, in recent years there has been more emphasis on changing pedagogy to engage young people’s interest in learning about music. One example is Musical Futures set up by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation in 2003 (see e.g. Musical Futures 2023; Zeserson et al. 2014; Hallam, Creech, and McQueen 2011). A Musical Futures approach is founded on informal learning practices; the pedagogical principle is constructivist and learner centred. However, such an approach tends to conflate informal learning with certain types of music listened to by young people, despite the considerable variation in music preferences and the greater importance, in informal learning, of aural skills (see e.g. McQueen, Hallam, and Creech 2018).

Defining music literacy

A literature review identified the fact that there is no consensus on what literacy or indeed music means. A broad definition of literacy in dictionaries is the ability to read and write a particular language; the term has, however, become controversial since it implies normative assumptions about what it means to be literate with associated judgements about the value of some knowledge and skills above others. Defining literacy prompts ‘issues of commonality and diversity, inequality and justice, and belonging and isolation’ (Gee 2014, 17). According to Gee, some view literacy as authoritarian; others believe it to be emancipatory (see e.g. Freire 1970). Brian Street (1984) refers to two models of literacy: autonomous, that is, literacy independent of social and cognitive practices, and ideological, that is, literacy embedded in a specific cultural milieu. Street notes that the former is overly simplistic because it fails to acknowledge underlying ‘cultural and ideological assumptions’ (2000, 7–8).

When considering music literacy, rather than literacy more generally, further complications arise because there is no agreed definition of music, despite attempts to capture its many possibilities. Defining music is fundamentally an ontological issue (see e.g. Kania 2017) because it requires an answer to what music is. Although music might be referred to as organised sound or sonic art, there are exceptions to these concepts as well as unknown future possibilities for what music might be (McKeown-Green 2014). For instance, it might not include sound at all (examples might be silence or sensing vibrations by touch). As with the term literacy, the term ‘music’ depends on sociocultural understandings, and these will influence what counts as music and the ways in which it is represented in formal structures such as curricula and institutions.

Broomhead (2018), in his book What is Music Literacy?, critiques more traditional, narrow definitions of music literacy, favouring something more expansive, taking the view that a musical text can be very many things, including a score, gesture, recording, or even an audience. In light of his broad concept of a musical text, Broomhead considers music literacy to be ‘the ability to negotiate and create music texts in ways that music experts would recognise as "correct" or "viable"’ (2018, 16).

Defining music and music literacy has led to controversy, owing to different sociocultural ideologies. An article in the Guardian (Gill 2017) entitled ‘Music is now only for the white and wealthy’ argued that music notation is too elitist, ‘a cryptic, tricky language – rather like Latin – that can only be read by a small number of people, most of whom have benefited from private education’. The article prompted a reply (‘The romanticisation of music illiteracy is risky’) countering Gill’s viewpoint (Pace 2017). Acknowledging that a range of skills is important, not just reading music, Ian Pace’s letter, with over 600 co-signatories, proposed that ‘Gill’s position could serve to make literate musical education even more exclusive through being marginalised in state schools yet further’. Jon Henschen (2018) also expressed concern about a decline in traditional music literacy and the quality of much popular music. Steve Giddings (2019), writing in response to Henschen’s piece, says that ‘The ability to read music has nothing to do with musical talent and to assume otherwise is pretentious and elitist’. Philip Ewell (see e.g. 2020) has criticised the white racial frame of music. A similar view has been expressed by Adam Neely (2020) in his YouTube video about white supremacy in music education. Inevitably, an individual’s position in relation to debates about the inclusive or exclusive nature of music education will influence their acceptance of or concern about what young people are taught in formal and less formal settings.

What evidence is there for a gap in music literacy?

The title of the research implies that young people’s knowledge and skills relating to music literacy (notwithstanding the complication of its definition) has declined, resulting in a gap between what is already known and what needs to be known for those applying to study music at a higher level. An extensive literature search indicated that this concern was international and had existed for some time. For example, in the United States, Boylan (1993) noted a decline in performance and music literacy in primary and secondary school students, and Asmus (2004) commented on the increase in applicants for music degrees who were unable to read music. Moore (2014) revealed the dominance of higher education music students in Ireland who had had private music tuition. She concluded that ‘in attempts to make the subject more accessible and inclusive for second-level students by devising a new syllabus, it would appear that the gap between accessibility at second and higher education levels has become wider than before’ (264). Comiskey (2009, 56), in an Australian context, commented:

Many of today’s [higher education] students are beginners in terms of the type of music literacy that Kodály educators believe is integral to good musicianship. Some students [lack] even the most basic knowledge of keys, clefs and metre which are pre-requisite for proficient reading.

Although based on a small sample, one study in the UK by Moir and Stillie (2018) was prompted by the observation that applicants to a popular music course at Edinburgh Napier University met the exam grade requirements but nevertheless lacked music skills and knowledge. One of the reasons put forward was that these students had learned informally or taught themselves. The 14 participants in the study, attending three different universities (in Scotland and England), had learned in haphazard ways, some wishing that they had been given the opportunity to learn more at school because of the gap between their pre-existing knowledge and what was required at university. The school curriculum was seen to be an issue, leaving students to seek extra-curricular opportunities, teaching themselves or having extra tuition. One reason for the gap was thought to be the rote learning of abstract musical concepts to pass exams at school, suggesting a deficiency in existing pedagogy.

These examples from the UK and beyond support the view that students are now less well prepared for higher study than they once were because school music education does not always provide the requisite knowledge and skills. This difference, or some might say deficiency, could be because schools are expected to find ways to make the music curriculum more inclusive and ‘enjoyable’, rather than there being expectations that students will follow or be subjected to a prescribed syllabus.

In this article, we assess key findings from the Music Literacy Report written for the SMA pertaining to curricula and access to music literacy. Our comments are drawn from responses to the following research questions:

1. What is the purpose of music education in school and at university?

2. How inclusive of students’ preferred music genres is your education context?

3. Who or what develops music literacy?

4. What would you expect higher education music applicants to know or be able to do?

5. What resources are used to increase knowledge and skill in music literacy?

6. What does it mean to be musically literate?

7. To what extent do stakeholders in music education agree with the proposal that students have reduced musical literacy compared to the past and that this has created a gap for those applying for higher education music courses?

8. What role might the Society for Music Analysis have in supporting music education, for instance, by offering resources?

Method

Design

A mixed-methods design was used, offering the possibility of a richer understanding of a phenomenon, in this case stakeholders’ views on music literacy. A sequential design was applied, so that general patterns could be identified before exploring aspects in more detail (Biesta 2021). Data were collected from surveys for music learners and teachers, from interviews with a range of stakeholders in music education, and from a Music Literacy Study Day (July 2020), consisting of a number of papers relevant to issues raised by the Project and small group discussions of some of the Project’s key questions. In addition, data were generated by less formal approaches including conversations held with representatives of music organisations (exam boards, private companies and universities) who attended the Music and Drama Education Expo in March 2020 in London, just prior to the pandemic lockdown, and observation of a study day for A-level students from different schools in the southeast of England (October 2019). These more informal approaches helped to raise awareness of the Project and allowed the Researcher and Collaborator to talk to potential participants, to observe and to gather information.

Recruitment

To raise awareness of the Project and to seek participants, emails were sent via Musicology All (JISCMail – MUSICOLOGY-ALL List at WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK) with information about the Project and the Music Literacy Study Day. An article was published in Music Teacher magazine in May 2020 and a notice was published in the July/August 2020 issue of the ISM magazine. Emails were sent to university departments in England offering a degree or part of a degree in music (N = 74) inviting participation by staff and, via them, students. All 122 music hubs in England were contacted, but only one music hub responded and subsequently participated. Systematic sampling was used to select 239 schools using the government’s database available at the time (https://www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/). The invitation to participate was open to music teachers and students over the age of 16. A further 40 colleges or sixth forms were contacted. Each exam board was contacted but there was only one respondent who subsequently participated anonymously. The Researcher and Collaborator distributed flyers at the Expo and the A-level study day referred to above with an invitation to participate. Information about the Project was included in the SMA website, including links to the online surveys. All emails that were sent included links to the surveys and the surveys included an invitation to contact the Researcher if the respondent would like to be interviewed. Owing to Covid restrictions, all interviews and the study day were conducted remotely.

Participants

All participants were volunteers or self-selecting owing to the recruitment strategy described above. Some participants were contacted through snowball sampling, with each interviewee being asked if they could suggest someone who might like to participate. Other participants were a purposive sample, drawn from those representing music organisations in England as well as individuals who had responded to an invitation to participate. 165 music teachers and 68 music students completed a survey. 33 interviews were held. Participants in the interviews were representatives from music organisations (including one exam board), university lecturers, schoolteachers, peripatetic and private instrumental teachers, and two students.

Research instruments

Survey

An online questionnaire was constructed using Survey Monkey (https://uk.surveymonkey.com/). Different versions were created for music teachers and music students. In constructing both the interview schedule and the surveys, although considerable care was taken to avoid leading questions and bias, two music teachers nevertheless added a comment suggesting that the survey was biased towards traditional notions of literacy. Some questions were multiple choice, with options chosen by the researcher; however, each question provided an ‘other’ option and reminded the participant that questions always related to their own definition of music literacy. ‘Musical Instruments’ were stated to include voice.

Interview schedule

The interview schedule included similar questions to the survey, such as asking for a definition of music literacy and a view on whether knowledge and skills might, as the SMA propose, be lacking. Participants were also asked about what was helpful in developing their own music literacy, according to their definition, and whether additional resources might be helpful.

Study day questions

Facilitators guided the discussion based on some key questions. These included asking what music literacy is, what the essential components of music education are that should be preserved, what a music literacy programme for young people might look like and what resources might be useful.

Ethical considerations

The research was undertaken following British Psychological Society ethical guidelines. Both the Researcher and Collaborator are members of the BPS and are committed to upholding its ethical standards. For all data collection methods, informed consent was sought. All participants were offered the right to withdraw their data up to the point of the report being written. The survey responses were anonymous. Those who were interviewed had the option to remain anonymous. The Study Day included small group discussions with questions as prompts during which, with the agreement of participants, notes were taken by facilitators or constructed afterwards from recordings. These notes were anonymised.

Reflexivity

The Researcher: my psychology research training has emphasised the importance of aspiring to take an objective stance, even if impossible. I would say that my approach has been one of ‘theorised subjectivity’ (Letherby 2013) or perhaps ‘situated objectivity’ (Williams 2015). I acknowledge that my experience and studies of education (over 50 years of piano teaching, a traditional music degree, a secondary school music teaching qualification, a complicated and sometimes troubled relationship with music, a pursuit of high academic standards for all and equitable opportunities) are not value free. In addition, I was also aware of the literature on multiliteracies through reading work by authors such as Cope and Kalantzis (e.g. 2015). Therefore, it is acknowledged that the questions written for the research, although based on the issues the SMA engaged me to investigate, as well as my interpretation of the qualitative data, will have been influenced by my interpretation of the task I was entrusted with.

The Collaborator: I have a background in music teaching (in higher education, schools, and as a private instrumental teacher), law, and psychology, all of which informed my response to the Project. Above all my response was conditioned by my school years in the 70s. I attended a direct-grant grammar school in the UK and played in a high-quality, county-run youth orchestra populated by a mix of state, grammar, and privately educated pupils. At that time, all students, regardless of background, had equal opportunity to access individual instrumental lessons. As a result of my experiences, I am acutely aware of how inequalities in educational provision mean that students without access to good music education are unlikely to reach their potential. Consequently, it is possible that I encouraged the Researcher to explore certain avenues rather than others. I also knew that some of the SMA trustees have very different backgrounds and assumptions from my own, so worked particularly hard to eliminate bias in how I advised the Researcher to prepare and formulate her report. Nevertheless, since the SMA had commissioned the report, I had to ensure that there was some focus on views of the loss of traditional music literacy teaching, since such skills are a prerequisite for understanding the kind of work published in the Journal Music Analysis, the organisation largely responsible for funding the work of the SMA.

Findings

The findings presented here have been selected from the data to indicate the range of views expressed by music teachers and students, illustrated by samples from the qualitative data. SPSS was used for the quantitative and NVivo for the qualitative analysis.

Quantitative data

Teachers (87%) and students (74%) alike considered the most important purpose of music education in schools to be ‘for enjoyment’. The second most important purpose was ‘to develop practical musicianship’ (respectively 85% and 80%), and the third was ‘progression to higher level study’ (respectively 81% and 66%). Regarding, the purpose of music education in higher education, teachers considered the main purpose to be ‘understanding the more theoretical aspects’ (90%, compared to 74% for students).

The answers to the question on how inclusive their institution is showed considerable variation; ratings for teachers varied from zero to 100% and approximately 20% of students rated their institution as 100% inclusive compared with 12% of teachers.

Participants were asked who or what helped to develop their music literacy (as defined by them). Instrumental teachers were selected as having been the most influential by the majority, followed by secondary school teachers and self-study. Many participants mentioned the value of collaborative music opportunities, such as choirs, orchestras or other ensembles.

Participants were asked about their expectations of the knowledge and skills that music degree applicants would have. In general, teachers had higher expectations than students, although there were similar trends for both. Most agreed that being able to read at least one clef and to write music at a basic level were expected. Being able to use technology or to sing were selected least often. Teachers were asked the extent to which their students met the expectations they had selected on a scale from one to 100. Four per cent selected 100% of the time. 15% selected about half the time, which was the most common response.

When asked about possible remedies for students should they not have the expected knowledge or skills, the majority of teachers selected ‘materials produced by you or your colleagues for independent study’ followed by a ‘catch-up’ module or sessions.

Table 1. Themes derived from the qualitative data.

Musical allegiances	The value of music education including analysis Expanded and restricted definitions of music literacy Developing music literacy Social justice The appropriateness of the curriculum The effectiveness of pedagogy Questioning the gap
Music education trajectories	The educational landscape Constraints and enablements Smooth and rugged pathways
Resources	Existing resources Difficulty with resources How the SMA might contribute to resources

Qualitative data

These data were derived from some of the survey questions, the interviews and the discussions held during the Music Literacy Study Day. A thematic analysis based on Braun and Clarke (2006) led to identifying a number of themes (as described in detail in the original research report and summarised in Table 1, below). The codes were both a priori or deductive (such as the definitions of music literacy) and a posteriori or inductive (such as musical allegiances).

The individual music education trajectory of each participant inevitably influenced their musical allegiances. The theme Musical allegiances refers to a set of values and beliefs expressed by participants about music education, including views on what music literacy is, how it should be developed, the music curriculum and how it should be taught, the value of music education, and what social justice would entail in music education.

A fundamental question for the Project was defining music literacy, prior to determining whether there was a ‘gap’. In the quantitative study, of 157 teachers answering the question, 68% said that music literacy required an understanding of symbols or codes and the ability to translate those into music or vice versa. In the interviews, it was notable that there was often a long pause after a participant was asked to say what they considered music literacy to be.

I’ve never really thought about it any other way than being able to read music … it’s about the language of music, which for me is five lines and dots. (teacher)

Expanded definitions varied considerably and tended to depend on context, for instance considering literacy in relation to aurality and performing. In the following example, both narrower and broader definitions are referred to:

I would probably give two parallel answers. The first is a familiarity or competence in … the written medium of Western art music … I’d want to distinguish that, which is a culturally narrow definition of literacy, from a broader definition, which would apply to any kind of written or non-written, that is to say verbally disseminated, theoretical understanding that underpins a musical practice of some kind. (SMA trustee)

Some participants considered musicianship to be synonymous with music literacy.

If you’re a good musician and have a good ear, learning notation is easy … the baseline [for music literacy] should be musicianship. (Study Day participant)

There were several comments about the difficulty of defining music literacy and a strong concern about how well a restricted definition matches the breadth of music types, including music technology.

Music is so broad, and we get lots of technologists these days who can read something different. They can look at a screen, which is effectively a bunch of symbols, and they can know what it sounds like. Sit them down with a GCSE paper and ask them to analyse a score, they don’t know where to start, and you get the same the other way round … (teacher)

One of the interviewees, Lucy Green, pointed out that too broad a definition of music literacy can lead to it ceasing to have ‘any function as a concept’. Many were sensitive to or highly critical of definitions that might be construed as elitist or exclusive.

At the risk of being branded Euro-centric, I take it to mean an ability to read ‘conventional’ Western music notation comfortably. (teacher)

The entire construct of what constitutes ‘musical literacy’ needs to change. It is bound up with outdated and exclusionary discourses about who is a ‘proper’ musician and who isn't. It has been used by white, middle class, classical musicians to shame, exclude, mock and punish any musician who does not possess WAM ‘literacy’. (teacher)

The views on how to develop music literacy yielded different approaches, specifically one from the bottom up (aspects of teaching and learning), and another from the top down (changes to policy or structure) or a combination of these. Some pointed out that learning music can be disadvantaged because of difficulties with both learning experiences and policy, as demonstrated by this quote.

Most distressing is the almost complete disconnect between the requirements for GCSE (which can be passed with little or no musical literacy) and A-Level which cannot … It is probably fair to say that the inadequacy of preparation after primary school cuts off many (probably most) talented musicians who are not funded by family or charities. A-levels are a pre-requisite for most music degrees. Remediation is often offered but students who have not had a chance to acquire musical literacy at an early stage feel (and are) at a disadvantage that can be disheartening. (teacher).

A student interviewee referred to problems with the weighty curriculum they studied at school, resorting to a Pearson study guide to rote learn facts. The student also mentioned the lack of inclusion of female composers (something that was rectified after a complaint to the exam board as reported in The Independent 2015), but the respondent considered the choices to be tokenistic, giving the impression of breadth over depth:

We had one picked for film music. I can’t remember the composer, but it was for the film The Duchess. There wasn’t much to say about it. It was incidental music … one part was a drone that people were talking over. (student)

An important theme identified in the data was a concern about social justice, with very different views on what that would mean. A point of agreement was that it was socially just for everyone to have the opportunity to learn music. One important inhibiting factor for equal opportunity was the cost of private school music education and individual instrumental tuition. One of the most contentious issues was whether music education should or should not retain traditional literacy skills. Some considered these to be elitist and colonial while others believed that young people should not be deprived of such knowledge. The range of views is illustrated here:

Academics have a duty to take each type of music seriously, and help with decolonising the curriculum by working to understand, codify and value the vocabularies and theories of many types of music … (Study Day participant)

The UK school system quite clearly ‘filters’ out prospective music students. (teacher)

Curricula generally re-tread familiar paths – a very dead-white-male-dominated canon for classical students … (teacher)

Everyone is free to partake – this whole ‘diversity’ nonsense is dangerous and divisive, and to unquestionably uphold such a false doctrine makes you accountable for the very real harm it will/has caused. (teacher)

In sport, no one goes, oh, what games do you do, oh you kick a ball about in the park, that’s the curriculum then. It’s nonsense … There is a slow and steady build-up of skills and knowledge, so pupils become more confident, aware and equipped to play with more sophistication. Exactly the same should be happening in music lessons – our role as musicians is to connect them beyond what they know already. (Simon Toyne)

When asked about a possible gap in knowledge and skill between school and university study, most participants acknowledged that this might be so, commenting, for instance, on how universities have reduced the traditional requirements for entry to a music degree in order to widen access. One interviewee noted ‘a downward trajectory’ in skills and another referred to ‘lowering the bar’ for entrance. Some teachers thought the curriculum should be revised in order to accommodate reduced traditional skills, but others were concerned that to do so would lead to reduced opportunities to learn. Others commented on the wide range of student skills and experiences encountered in the same cohort, from the most basic to extremely advanced.

Discussion

The aim of the research was to find out the views of stakeholders in music education on the notion put forward by the SMA that school music literacy and associated skills have declined, creating a gap in skills for those wishing to continue their music education at university. An essential question, however, is what is meant by music literacy. Regarding that question, there was a wide variety of views, although literacy was generally considered to involve reading and writing notation, even if that definition was considered too narrow and troubled a number of the participants. The answer to the first question of what it means to be musically literate depended on participants’ concept of social justice and their perceptions of the potential (or actual) limitations of institutional policy and practice. If literacy includes how music is represented symbolically, then being able to use and understand music technology could be part of being musically literate; however, some school exams and instrumental lessons rely more (or exclusively) on traditional notation. Whether literacy is synonymous with musicianship has yet to be resolved because there is no clear definition of musicianship. The Royal College of Music (London) Junior Department (2023), for instance, offers musicianship classes to develop ‘listening skills … contextual awareness and active performance’, all of which are contained within the broad definition of music literacy offered by Broomhead (2018).

Regarding the perceived skills gap between school and university music education, and notwithstanding problems with defining music literacy, the majority of music teachers agreed that knowledge and skills gained by students in school music classes have either declined or were different from those currently expected at university level. Both teachers and students ranked instrumental teachers as the most important resource for increasing music literacy and thought that they helped young people successfully negotiate the transition from school to higher education. The student participants were studying music either at university or for A-level and all played an instrument or sang. Most had passed at least Grade 5 theory of the Associated Boards of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM), for which, at the time they had taken the exam, reading and writing music was a requirement. However, ABRSM has changed to an online examination format, prompted by the 2020 lockdown, and questions, many of which are multiple choice, are answered without writing music by hand. This format could lead to a further decline in traditional skills of applicants to university music courses even in cases where ABRSM theory exam attainment is still a requirement. On the other hand, an online format could offer digital music opportunities, which would not have been possible in the previous exam format. In addition to instrumental teachers, collaborative music opportunities were considered important to the development of music literacy, however that might be defined. Such opportunities might well become more important for the development of some kind of music literacy if the rise in self-teaching, also ranked highly as a resource, continues. This is likely to be the case even though some teachers were very concerned by the variable quality of resources offered online for self-instruction.

The SMA commissioned the report to understand if it could assist in providing resources to address any skills gap. The general view of participants was that there are many resources available. One teacher asked, ‘why bother?’ and another said that it was not necessary to ‘reinvent the wheel’, given the wealth of material available. In contrast, students indicated they would like more books and worksheets to support their learning. The SMA has engaged a Widening Participation and Outreach Officer in response to the report’s findings, to develop connections between the SMA and school education bodies. In 2024, the SMA will hold its first ‘summit’ on music literacy, and the recent Society of Music Analysis Conference at Oxford University (2023) had as one of its themes ‘music literacies’ (https://www.sma.ac.uk/2022/10/oxmac-2023/). The Project report has thus had considerable impact on the activities of the SMA and its output.

The emphasis in the initial research was on higher education owing to the specific concerns of the SMA. The report’s findings are however relevant to music education more widely. The research has added to the debate over what music literacy is beyond reading and writing notation, which for some is essential and for others a restricting convention that does not account for the many ways one might be musically literate. Broader concerns were raised by the research, such as the minimal training in music for primary school teachers, the dependence of traditional music degree programmes on taking students who have been privately educated, whether at school or by a private one-to-one instrumental teacher, and inappropriate aspects of school exam specifications. The research illustrated some of the excellent teaching in England, broadening opportunities for all young people to learn about music of many kinds. The research would have been more straightforward if there were consistent views on what music literacy is and how that differs, if it does, from musicianship or music theory. Any decline in knowledge and skills in one area might perhaps be compensated for by a rise in skills in a different area. For instance, there might now be a better understanding of music technology or more developed aural skills, even if understanding of written notation has declined. The extent to which this is the case has yet to be investigated.

Participants noted that music was so broad a subject it was necessary in teaching it to prioritise some knowledge. In doing so, the purpose of such knowledge might have to be considered. For instance, should there be greater emphasis on knowledge that prepares students for the world of work rather than learning for its own sake? It was observed that lecturers in higher education are left to decide their curricula and associated roles far more than those in the state-regulated sector. The role of lecturers has shifted from informing students based on their expertise to learning facilitators who help students to learn and to acquire skills, a role that is not necessarily acceptable to all. A facilitatory role is at odds with the traditional view of what a university lecturer is expected to do, summed up by the following letter to the Guardian quoted in Wagner (1995, 18):

I do not wish to be a teacher, I am employed as a lecturer and in my naivety I thought my job was to ‘know’ my field, contribute to it by research and to lecture on my specialism! Students attend my lectures but the onus to learn is on them. It is not my job to teach them.

The theme of social justice was identified in many responses with strongly held views on the matter. However, the form of social justice was not agreed upon, with some favouring decolonisation of curricula and others being concerned by the potential to reduce learning opportunities. For instance, in the context of English teaching in the States, adjustments for those less skilled in academic English could lead to ‘low expectations and watered-down curricula’ (National Education Association 2015, 7).

Limitations

It is important to note that the report is limited in several ways. Firstly, the research focused on England, although the literature review indicated similar concerns in other parts of the United Kingdom and beyond. Secondly, although a wide range of stakeholders took part, they expressed very different views which were therefore quite difficult to summarise. Thirdly, exam boards and the music industry were underrepresented, as were music hubs, despite invitations to participate. The sample of students who participated was relatively small and comprised more traditional musicians in terms of educational experiences. It would have been helpful to hear from more university and conservatoire students about their understanding of music literacy as well as sixth-form students who did not intend to continue their study of music. We would have been interested to learn more about their thoughts on social justice and music education. As noted in the reflexivity statement, it is not possible to be truly objective. We were surprised and somewhat perturbed by the comments of some of the teachers who assumed, wrongly, that because the Project was commissioned by the SMA, there was a hidden agenda of wanting to have it confirmed that a definition of music literacy included being able to read and write traditional notation. Such a lack of trust in research objectivity is not always expressed so overtly. As noted earlier, the Researcher does have a background in music but has been more involved with education in general, and both the Researcher and Collaborator have degrees in psychology as well as music. Inevitably, had the research been carried out by someone else with different allegiances and experiences, then different emphases would have arisen, but every effort was made to avoid bias, notwithstanding the initial impetus for the Project, which was to investigate a perceived gap in music literacy.

Further research

The Project inevitably raised more questions, and these could be the basis for further research. These questions include issues that other articles in this special issue will address, such as what might constitute an ideal curriculum; how one-to-one instrumental teaching contributes to preparing students for school and university music courses; how digital music, and increasingly AI, has and will in the future influence musical learning in formal and informal settings; and what the nature of widening participation and widening access to music is currently and what it might or should be in the future. Many of these areas are bound up with differing views of social justice, including, most fundamentally perhaps, how concepts of social justice might determine what and why specific types of musical knowledge and learning are given precedence over others.

Conclusion

The Music Literacy Project investigated whether stakeholders in music education agreed with the SMA’s proposal that knowledge and skills relating to music literacy have declined. The consensus was that students have less knowledge of traditional music literacy and theory than was once the case. Nonetheless, music education continues to be valued, with participants holding strong, if diverse, views on what form it should take. The fact that music literacy is defined in different ways made it difficult to give a definitive answer to some of the research questions. It is not clear how it differs from musicianship according to either participants in the research or the literature. One could suggest that literacy provides access to important aspects of music theory and practice, although the work on multiliteracies demonstrates the importance of inclusive educational practices. Quality resources for self-teaching aspects of music theory were desired by some, including the students. Finally, a common concern was social justice, with different views on what that might mean for how or what music is taught. The authors would have liked to have heard more from exam boards regarding the issues raised. Based on the findings, the authors hope, firstly, that the examples of rich curricula included in the report can be replicated elsewhere and, secondly, that exam boards avoid lowering the bar and ensure that updated curricula remain coherent.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This article is based on the final report of a two-year research project (2019–2020) commissioned and funded by the Society for Music Analysis.

Notes on contributors

Hilary McQueen

Dr. H. McQueen is currently an Associate Lecturer in psychology with the Open University. Until recently, she also worked for UCL Institute of Education as a teacher educator. In addition to teaching, Hilary has carried out research in music education as well as in teaching and learning more widely. That research has included the study of transitions to higher education in the context of Widening Participation, and Musical Futures in secondary schools. From her undergraduate studies in music and, later, psychology to postgraduate work in education, her interests cross the boundaries of psychology, sociology, philosophy, and music.

Esther Cavett

Dr. E. Cavett is a Senior Research Fellow in Music at King’s College London and College Lecturer in Music at Somerville, Jesus, and Lincoln Colleges, where she specialises in teaching the analysis of Western classical music from the 18th to 20th centuries.  Her research interests are music theory and analysis, widening access to music education, music pedagogy, and music psychology (especially qualitative interviewing). As a pianist, she performs and works with various musical charities dedicated to improving access to and broadening appreciation of music.