Ben Cooper interview: Fabian Society's report on music education in England

Making the case for a national music education service in England, among several other recommendations in the name of ‘restoring’ quality music education for all young people, the Fabian Society released its report in August 2022. The long standing Labour-affiliate thinktank titled the report A National Music Service, brandishing it with the subheading: ‘How to ensure every child can access a good music education’. Led by senior researcher Ben Cooper, the document is free to view online, and was released in partnership with the Musicians’ Union (MU) with insight from well-known names in music education including Chris Walters, David Barnard, Georgina Burt, Sarah McWatt, Vanessa Stansall, Jonathan Westrup and Roger Wilson.

Providing readers with a whistle-stop tour of music education in England over the last 12 years, the report highlights the important health and wellbeing and economic benefits to providing good subject provision. Addressing the fall in students taking music at KS4 and above, the document establishes why change is needed and outlines a number of solutions.

The key proposals in the report – intended to influence Labour's manifesto – include the introduction of a National Music Education Service (NMES) with increased funding, and a workforce guarantee for teachers and leaders in hubs, with a focus on reducing inequality and prioritising underrepresented groups. Music in schools is also central, with a suggestion of reintroducing an ‘arts education premium’ – an election pledge quietly shelved by the Conservatives in 2021 – to upgrade equipment, teacher training, recruitment of teachers and accessibility to the subject. I spoke to Ben Cooper about the process of writing the report to find out more.

Hattie Fisk: How did the report come about and what was the research process like?

Ben Cooper: This was a continuation of the work the Fabian Society had done with the MU and other partners in 2019 when it investigated provision of arts education in primary schools. There were five people listed in the acknowledgements in the 2022 report, but we spoke to more of the sector in a roundtable – we had a strong debate about the future of music education which helped to flesh out and finesse the recommendations. One of the things I really wanted to do was make sure it worked on the ground. You can write things and ideas can be created, but ultimately if it doesn't work on the ground then it doesn't work.

HF: Do you have a background in music?

BC: Not at all! I do think this has been helpful in one respect, as most people are never going to be top tier musicians. Individuals may not grow up to have a job in the music sector, but they will still benefit from having a music education. I think having that perspective can be beneficial for making sure the policy works for everyone.

Writing the report, we identified four groups facing significant barriers to accessing high quality music education: young people from low-income families, Black and minority ethnic young people, disabled young people, and young people in rural areas. I think it's really important that we tackle the specific barriers faced by those four groups on a national scale. I am disabled, and one of the reasons why I was terrible at the guitar was because of my disability. Had I been given the opportunity to have an adapted musical instrument when I was younger, this might have been different.

HF: How influential is the Fabian Society?

BC: We have an incredibly close relationship with the Labour party, and over our 138-year history, Fabians have had a track record of coming up with the ideas that are then used and implemented in manifesto legislation. The arts premium that was in this report was also in the first report that I did with the MU in 2019, which was put in the proposed manifesto. If you go back 110 years, we were the first ones who came up with the idea of a national health service. However, obviously, for the last 12 years we haven't had a close relationship with a Labour government because there hasn't been one in power.

HF: The report's suggestions are promising, but how practical do you think they are given the current cost-of-living crisis and other political priorities?

BC: I can see the argument that music education isn't important in the cost-of-living crisis. However, we are going to face significant challenges in protecting people's access to music education; the funding we propose is relatively small in the grand scheme of things. A government that is good at governing should be able to fund and achieve more than one thing – we should obviously be freezing the energy bill, but we should also be acting on a range of different topics. We're very aware that it is a small area, but so much can be easily done in music education that could be so transformative.

HF: The report suggests a £105m capital investment for instruments and the National Music Education Service. Do you think that is a reasonable sum or is it an aim to kickstart discussion in government?

BC: The £105m is spread over four years, and it is the same amount of funding that the Welsh government is providing per child for musical instruments, so it is feasible. This would allow local authorities to retire their old and very worn musical instruments and replace them with new technology. We have so many manufacturers of adaptive musical instruments in England that are not being supported, and we could benefit them while also providing instruments for schools and local community hubs.

HF: What do you think was missing from the newly refreshed National Plan for Music Education (NPME) in England?

BC: The Plan needs to encourage good teaching provided by well-trained and well-paid teachers with good morale. I think there was inadequate focus on teachers in the Plan, and I think it was a missed opportunity. What happens in schools and hubs will be determined by the staff and people who work there, and this is really hard to achieve sustainably without a workforce guarantee.

There were lots of warm words in the plan, but the levers aren't there to make things happen. And if the levers were there, they were not sufficiently connected to a school or music hub. There needs to be funding there so that the policy can be implemented, rather than turn into warm words that don't count for much.

We all agree with the ambition that the NPME has for music education, but I want to see what the levers would look like to deliver on that. This is about making sure that people have the money to provide the services, but also making sure that they can access the support they need to deliver high-quality education.

HF: One of the criticisms of the Plan is that it's non-statutory. Do you think we can have an impact without imposing statutory policy in music education?

BC: We need to find the middle ground between introducing a blanket statutory rule that may not work across all schools in England and making a non-statutory suggestion that does not have the levers to make change happen. This would be more of a partnership model.

However, it is important that funding is here, as a partnership model with no increased funding would merely put increased expectation on teachers, which is not something we want to create.

Read the Fabian Society's report at bit.ly/3TMp7GP.