Musical instrument lessons in UK schools

[MusicIsForAllChildren]

Hello. I would love to start a discussion about what I see as a sad fact that UK state schools are now charging parents for musical instrument lessons. It never used to be this way. Children need opportunities to learn about the arts at school just as they need academic lessons and sports. Cultural vitamins please, not invoices!

Fees in state schools create barriers and stigma.

Grateful for any stories and thoughts.

If you agree with its proposal, please consider signing this petition.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/223408

Thanks!

When/where did it never used to be that way? I left school in early 2000s and always had to pay towards lessons and for instruments (even though it was cheaper than private lessons).

Agree music lessons are important, though not every child wants to.

I think emotional education for everyone would be better for unlocking individual creativity if I could choose.

I left school in the 80s and even then my parents had to pay for my music lessons?!

Thatcher scrapped free lessons in England so that takes you back quite a long way. In Scotland they remained free until quite recently, the first local authorities to charge did so ten years ago and there's only three or four local authorities out of 32 that still provide free lessons.

They have always been low cost, but never no cost, as far as I am aware from my time both as a pupil (up till mid 90s) and as a teacher.

Schools often use pupil premium money to provide instrument lessons to PP children. I think bringing in specialist music teachers to teach curriculum would make a bigger difference. Some private schools are sending their music teachers out to the local state schools to provide some of this. Setting up group/class violin lessons would also make a difference. Individual instrument lessons are expensive and given demands of shrinking school budgets I don't think it should be funded except for PP kids.

It wasn't Thatcher, it was a local authority issue and extent of funding (and when it ended) varied considerably between regions. It's still subsidised (if if no longer free) in at least some areas.

This is why local elections matter. These are the sorts of spending priorities which are decided by your councillors, and different areas do make different decision son what they prioritise (even when times are tight).

AFAIK, mine were free (1970s) but you needed to hire/buy the instrument. So even then, cost could be a barrier.

I know some areas have a music centre where if you join you can access quite a lot cheaply. We dont!! I think the tuition is a bit cheaper than the private school gets charged for peripatetic though.

It really adds up. I want my daughters to learn as I didnt get a chance to but it is so expensive.

We've had fantastic choir though in their state school.

Interesting. What sort of music lessons do you mean? I’m (cough) pre - Thatcher era and although we had recorder sessions for free in school, plus ‘music and movement’, I’m not sure either would really count as learning an instrument.

I went to school in mid 80s and my parents paid for my music lessons. I think they hired the instruments.
Dd's violin lessons cost £10 for a 20 min lesson, which does make them out of reach for many people. I think the opportunity to learn how to play should be part of every child's education.

We had recorder groups, choir and 'orchestra' (sing-a-long with percussion, really) provided by staff at junior school (all free)

I n my earlier post, I was thinking of the lessons provided by peripatetic teachers to secondary schools - I remember that violin, clarinet and flute were available at mine, and I think some brass as well.

In the school I work in all kids learn an instrument for free for at least one year. The school has a stock of instruments though which they use.

My violin was free when I went to school early 80s. My Ds does guitar and it is £50 per term for a half hour lesson.what bugs me is because the lesson is on a Friday it is often cancelled for inset, sports day, outings etc so we don’t get what we are paying for. His teacher is excellent

Wow plural! Thats amazing.

We had a 10 week course of whole class brass randomly by external teacher. It was fab for the kids but v basic and lota of kids messing around as ever...

Lessons are 10 a week here. For 2 kids thats a lot.

I'm sure the provision of music has always varied from school to school and region to region. Music is, though, part of the National Curriculum, so all children get music lessons of some sort. It just doesn't necessarily mean learning a specific instrument. Some local state schools do teach all children certain instruments depending on year group though - e.g drums and percussion and recorders - the types of instrument which are relatively low cost and easy to teach in large groups. In fact most schools around here seem to teach the recorder.

The problem with expecting free instrument tuition for every pupil is the same old problem - where does the money come from? Which other subject would you like to draw funding away from. Less PE resources? Less reading books?

I would argue the "music" is an important part of education, but that learning a specific instrument is not essential part of that and therefore not the highest priority for limited funds.

What instruments do they learn, Plural? Do they have different teachers for, say, brass and woodwind and strings? I'm intrigued!

Check out Be Part of the Music on Twitter. Lots of great articles about the benefits of specialist musical instrument tuition. When times are tough public money needs to work hard. The surest way out of poverty is education. Musical instrument tuition builds confidence. Confident children can achieve anything. Just like sport for sporty kids. We don't make kids pay for PE lessons in schools. I am afraid there is prejudice against music. It is seen as elitist. The reality is that music is an amazing social leveller.

We had recorder lessons for free. 1970's. But my parents had to pay for my flute lessons (in school there were peripatetic teachers for woodwind, brass and violin).

I had free instrumental lessons in school in the 1970s (Wales). Had to pay for my DDs' lessons though (2000s - N Wilts).

Budget cuts

No, you're right, we don't make kids pay for PE lessons. But we don't make them pay for music lessons either. We just make them pay for specialist instrument tuition. In exactly the same way that kids need to pay for specialist sports lessons and coaching. (In fact, at a lot of state schools parents are asked to contribute towards transport to swimming lessons - and swimming is part of the National Curriculum, as well as a skill which saves lives.)

I still think you are confusing the issue. Music is important. And that is why it is taught, and why it is part of the NC. But it can be taught without children needing to learn specific woodwind, brass or string instruments.

Perhaps the answer is some sort of means testing for specialist instrument tuition, to enable those who would not ordinarily be able to afford the cost to access it (perhaps particularly if they have a strong interest in it). As pointed out above, some schools do use PP money in this way. I don't agree that specialist instrumental tuition for all kids is the best use of public funds.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/223408
This is a petition regarding free music tuition in England.

It’s a shame that all those that have potential to thrive through music maybe aren’t given the opportunity.

I received free music tuition when I was at school, and I think it’s given me a lifelong appreciation for team work and music.

You make good points. We are lucky to have music in the curriculum to the extent we do. There are fabulous initiatives now that didn't exist in the good old days. Children in many places now enjoy a certain number of hours of free, specialist musical instrument tuition at primary school to introduce them to the opportunity. Lessons thereafter now have to be paid for, unless certain concessions apply, such as eligibility for free school meals, in which case lessons are free. Equity is important. If there are three kids standing in front of a wall, one tall therefore enjoying the view, one just too short to see over the wall and the third much shorter then you wouldn't give each child a box to stand on. You'd give the tall kid's box to the shortest child so he'd get two and then everyone can enjoy the view. So I agree with the idea that resources should be targeted unequally in order to ensure equity. I also agree that there's no point putting all children through several years of specialist musical instrument tuition. For lots of children, that isn't the best use of resources. What I think is best is a system much more like the one we had many many years ago where children who wanted specialist musical instrument tuition at school, and who passed an assessment to establish that they have some basic potential, could learn for free. That gets it right for those children. It targets resource. The effect on those children was often profound. There's no justification for fees other than to raise money. Fees exclude children. They are also expensive to administer. There is something particularly important in music education about learning to play an instrument to an accomplished level. Music education without that possibility is absolutely limited. Tough times. The number of kids I know who were kept out of gangs, drugs, crime etc because of a band. Or a football team. We need to get it right for every child, targeting resources.

I’m in Scotland and when I was at school my mum had to pay for my music lessons. Equally I am now paying for my daughters music lessons. My youngest brother was brought up in a different local authority to me and all his music lessons were free.

I think the best way of thinking about this is to pick subject like French. All kids get a couple of years of French at secondary school then they can drop it. (Maybe it's a bit different now, showing my age, but I think the point holds good). I took French all the way to the end of sixth year, and was completely fluent by the time I left school. Forgotten most of it now! I don't think anyone would begrudge a child six years of specialist French tuition so that they can achieve fluency. What our decision makers don't understand is that if you want to become fluent in music, you must get specialist tuition in a musical instrument. Therefore the problem is that music is given lip service only in the curriculum. You can get an introduction for free for a couple of years, but if you want to become fluent, you gotta pay. Either music is a serious school subject and fees are cynical and wrong, or it's a luxury hobby for rich kids, pay up.