Epilogue

Firstly, we would like to thank the authors for their thought-provoking responses to the Report that was the starting point for this special issue, and Mary Stakelum, Editor in Chief of Music Education Research, for initially proposing that a special issue could be curated around outstanding questions arising from the Report. That Report responded to the research question set by the trustees of the Society for Music Analysis, but it raised other concerns, some of which have been debated in this issue. We chose the title Challenging Music Curricula and Literacy to capture both the challenges involved in making decisions about what to teach and why, and the need to take a critical approach to such decisions. Inevitably, perhaps, these articles suggest further avenues for research, some of which we identify here. This epilogue contains some of the critical reflections that formed part of an informal conversation we had after reading the articles.

Challenging music curricula and pedagogy

With the four literacies mentioned in the opening editorial in mind, the kind of literacy debated in this special issue is less about, or critical of, functional and cultural literacy, and more about progressive and critical approaches. A common theme arising from the articles in this special issue was that there is room for more critical thinking around curricula. What to teach is just one aspect, another is how to teach. Examples such as Musical Futures emphasise the importance of pedagogy, something that is evident throughout the special issue. In music education, there are no agreed common standards and no agreement on what should be considered a foundational skill. Consequently, music students of any age may well experience a variety of approaches to their music education, and while this could be stimulating, there is the potential to confuse or disincentivise. Providing an education suitable for all as well as for those hoping to continue with their music studies remains both a challenge and a point of dissention.

Choosing and measuring music knowledge and skills

Thinking about curriculum literacy leads us to a second theme, related to the first: the question of whether and in what way it is possible to measure excellence in music performance and teaching. An interesting point made in the Report by one of the participants was that there are many debates in music about what and how music should be taught, but nobody questioned maths teaching in the same way. As the participant commented, nobody says ‘oh, you know, I only like adding up, so I won’t bother learning my multiplication tables’. In maths teaching, even if ideology and approach change, students do not expect to pick out the bits of the syllabus they prefer. In music, there is no consensus about what ‘excellence’ would look like – should it be desirable to attain such a thing. Music as a school (or out-of-school) subject can be seen, understandably, as something to be enjoyed and engaged with rather than as a necessary life skill. It is hardly surprising, then, that views differ about the value of music education or the possibility of objective assessment of musical knowledge skills, even if what to teach is agreed upon.

Who has not been heard?

There is a myriad of ideas about music and music literacy, and they are not always compatible. We are acutely aware that we only hear certain voices in the debate in this issue, despite our efforts to include a greater diversity of authors. For the SMA research project, all music hubs and music exam boards were approached, yet all but one of these institutions did not respond or specifically declined to take part in the survey. For this special issue, we are aware of the lack of diversity amongst the writers, although a wider range of people were invited but had to decline owing to other commitments or priorities. It is important to enable more people to speak up and register their views. This journal’s contents are broad but, owing to the many expectations required of academic writing, its contributors are largely researchers working in academia. It would be interesting if the journal and others like it were to include more articles designed to support practising music teachers from many different backgrounds and persuasions, who could be encouraged to do their own practice-based research that could then be published within these pages. There might also be room for occasional open discussion forums. Unfortunately, the impact of more diverse voices will also be lessened owing to the prohibitive costs of open access publishing for anyone not supported by institutional funding. Similar thinking is currently under discussion within the Society for Music Analysis.

Time for a change or more of the same?

We return to the Janus image evoked in our introductory editorial. Our impression is that music education has reached a critical point, looking back to history and forwards to new approaches to teaching music. We were prompted to consider the possibility that music education, to use Kuhn’s (1962) terminology, is at a point of revolution or whether the lack of consensus has resulted in a return to a pre-paradigmatic point that, in time, will establish a new approach to teaching music. We reflected on the idea that different approaches to music education have reached a point of incommensurability, as Kuhn would say. Paradigms have previously been explored for arts education by Abbs (1996) and for music education by Panaoiditi (2005) in response to Abbs’s article. It may be time to revisit their philosophical musings to address the changes that have been brought about by developments in music technology and critical thinking.

Some final thoughts

It should be noted that we did not always agree on aspects of music education ourselves, no doubt because of the context of our teaching and learning experiences past and present. We do, however, share a commitment to interrogating the reasoning behind approaches to music education and a desire to make that education open to all, taught in an engaging way and without the temptation to cling on to aspects that are no longer salient or to the production of a watered-down version of curricula.

We wondered how it might be possible to address some of the challenges highlighted in this special issue. One possibility that we did agree on was to think again about the ‘subject’ of music. Robinson and Robinson (2022) advocate teaching disciplines rather than subjects. Disciplines have fuzzy boundaries and involve interdisciplinary learning, in contrast to subjects that are taught separately from others. Thus, music might be taught within its wider context and could involve history, philosophy, maths, physics, languages, and so on, depending on the topic under examination. There would be considerable implications for teacher education but could capitalise on the breadth and depth of knowledge that many possess as well as the many interests of learners.

We hope that the articles will encourage others to offer insights into the concept of music literacy. Of course, there is more to research about curricula and pedagogy. Our greatest aspiration is that music teachers and music students will be inspired to carry out their own research. As noted above, at present, there are many barriers to some stakeholders in music education engaging in research and its publication in academic journals. It may be a good time to address those barriers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

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 18th to 20th centuries. Her research interests are music theory and analysis, widening access to music education, music pedagogy, and music psychology.

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.