Challenging approaches to music curricula and literacy today

It is serendipitous that we have had the opportunity to put together a special issue for the January edition of Music Education Research’s 25th anniversary. The eponymous god, Janus, represents beginnings and endings, transitions, choices, looking both at what is to come and what has been. It is our hope that the articles in this issue highlight these aspects in terms of music literacy: its meaning, its representation in curricula, its relationship with literacy more generally, and its troubling nature.

At first glance, the word literacy can appear quite straightforward. Take this definition from the National Literacy Trust (2023): ‘Literacy is the ability to read, write, speak and listen in a way that lets us communicate effectively and make sense of the world’. If applied to music, the skills might be read (music), write (compose or capture), perform, and listen. These skills are likely to be very familiar in relation to school music lessons as well as instrumental lessons to varying degrees. In England, the Model Music Curriculum (HM Government 2021) accompanies the National Plan for Music Education (HM Government 2022). The non-statutory MMC focuses on developing what is referred to as musicianship, formed of singing, listening, composing, and performing, although the document later also refers to singing, listening composing and musicianship (that is, identification of pulse/beat, rhythm, pitch). Notation is referred to 66 times in the MMC. Its development is assumed to be part of learning music from an early age. ‘Developing fluency in the use of staff notation is a gateway to musical independence. An emphasis on supporting the development of this fluency should be implemented across the curriculum’ (HM Government 2021, 44).

The original stimulus for commissioning McQueen to produce the report was the Society for Music Analysis (SMA) trustees’ concern to understand whether music educators and students perceive there to be a gap between what students know prior to applying to or being accepted on higher education courses and what knowledge and skills students are expected or required to have as they continue their studies. A fundamental question for this report (Questioning the Gap in Music Literacy in England: Defining a role for the Society for Music Analysis in preparing students for music degrees in higher education today: McQueen 2020) was: what is music literacy? That is also the title of a book by Broomhead (2019), in which the author considers music literacy to include much broader skills than reading and writing notation. It became clear in the course of the SMA project that there is little agreement on what music literacy is, so it is hardly surprising that there is little consensus on how it should be taught.

One outcome from the SMA report was that we noticed many people realised they had not previously paused to consider what music literacy meant. The implications of this lack of clarity in thinking about the meaning of such a fundamental term ought, we believe, to be troubling for all music educators, for it has far-reaching implications for those working in higher education contexts where what might be called traditional knowledge and skills are, more often than not, an expectation. This special issue is another outcome of the SMA report since we felt that the report’s findings raised as many questions as they answered as well as provoking in us further critical thinking around music literacy, curricula, pedagogy and social justice. The series of articles in this special issue is therefore designed to interrogate and explore some of those questions and concerns, all of which are in some way connected with music literacy.

A search of previous editions of Music Education Research since its inception yielded 143 results for the word literacy. Excluding reviews and articles that are about language and literacy in education more generally, such as the benefit of music for their development, 17 articles remained, dating from 2003 onwards. A number of articles use the term ‘literacy’ uncritically, assuming it to mean reading and writing music, and sometimes types of literacy other than music literacy are proposed, such as critical media literacy. The first piece interrogating the term is Mantie’s (2008), in which he argues for more socially just, inclusive approaches to music education. He ends by saying, ‘Traditional notions of musicianship and musical literacy need to be re-examined if we are to accept and respond to the challenges of an increasingly diverse and interconnected world’ (482). Hess (2014) draws on critical theory and the four literacies proposed by Gould (2009): functional, cultural, progressive, and critical. The view of music literacy-as-reading-and-writing is part of functional literacy. Curricula that induct learners into, say, Western art music involve cultural literacy, argued to be elitist and restrictive. Those pedagogies that are more learner-centred are part of progressive literacy. The final form of literacy, critical literacy, has political intent, challenging the way in which a music curriculum is conceived. Changes, it is argued, such as including popular music are unlikely to be effective if they are required to fit into a pre-existing structure (school or exam system, for instance) or striated space. These forms of literacy are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Indeed, it might be that there is a time and a place for all of them.

The first article, by McQueen and Cavett, presents some of the findings from the original report (McQueen 2020), focusing on concerns about whether music literacy knowledge and skills have declined to the point where school curricula are now watered-down versions of what used to be included or whether changes to curricula provide, or perhaps could provide, more accessible music education.

Gary Spruce’s article addresses one of the most pervasive themes in the report, that of social justice, meaning what fairness in music education provision might look like. He focuses on the two opposing concerns participants in the music literacy research referred to: one, that everyone should have access to knowledge, regardless of background or initial interest, to avoid elitism; the other, that the content chosen for study purposes is exclusionary and inappropriate. He draws on Nancy Fraser’s work to promote the idea of participatory parity, something that could have far-reaching consequences for music curricula.

Donn, Moir and Stillie’s article is about aural literacy training. Contemporary training is often designed to address the requirements for listening based on Western art music, thus rendering it inappropriate for more contemporary music practices. There is a link with social justice, too, because the kind of skills taught and tested in schools are inequitable. They propose a much more student-centred approach to developing aural literacy, moving away from the transmission model of teaching and an inauthentic approach to testing aural skills.

Louth’s article on digital literacy embraces the shift from acoustic music and standard notation to the use of technology to produce and represent sound. At present, music curricula and exams do not always reflect developments in digital music literacy. Furthermore, a pedagogical concern he mentions is that traditional literacy and digital literacy tend to run in parallel rather than students being offered an integrated, holistic music education. He also advocates the importance of fostering critical literacy.

An aspect of music education in schools that stood out in the research on music literacy was the role of instrumental teaching in developing traditional literacy, thereby potentially and inadvertently contributing to inequitable music education in schools. Stakelum picks up this strand of the report in her article. She sets out the way instrumental teaching aligns or runs parallel to classroom music, noting that it is not a requirement to have formal training to teach. Stakelum also notes the inequitability of any requirement for instrumental learning to be a pre-requisite for progression to advanced music studies. One solution, she proposes, is a more collaborative approach, a partnership pedagogy.

Attah, Duek, Millar and Redhead offer different perspectives on the teaching of music theory, framed by an introduction and concluding thoughts by Cavett. The position pieces derive from the Royal Musical Association annual conference held in Manchester in 2023, offering a more practical approach to developing music theory skills in higher education. Cavett contextualises the examples with reference to the Oxford Music Analysis Conference, 2023, run by the Society for Music Analysis, and the joint Society for Music Theory and American Musicological Society conferences, indicating that music theory teaching in higher education is responding to the call to decolonise music scholarship.

Following these articles are two critical commentaries on recent events. The first, by Donn and Elphick, reports on the music literacy session that was part of the July 2023 ‘OxMac’ conference, summarising some of the many different approaches to music theory, literacy and pedagogy represented in the conference papers. The second, by MacGregor, discusses a report produced by the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Music Studies (EDIMS) network (Bull et al. 2022). Inequalities in race, gender, class, and disability in music higher education were evident. The report was the basis of a conference in Southampton in 2023 called ‘Slow train coming: Equality, diversity and inclusion in UK Higher education’, convened with the hope of making positive changes in music higher education. MacGregor picks up the theme of gender inequality, showing that there is still work to be done. This Special Issue ends with an Epilogue by Cavett and McQueen, highlighting some shared concerns between the papers as well as raising some outstanding matters requiring further consideration and research. We hope that readers will be inspired to take up the challenge.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Hilary McQueen

Dr Hilary 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 Esther 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 eighteenth to twentieth 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.