If you spend any time at all having discussions about music education, you will quickly come across the divisive issue of ‘specialist’ versus ‘non-specialist’ teaching. It is perhaps, after notation, the second most polarising topic across the sector. (This is quite surprising when you think about it, since our sector is made up of ‘music specialists’, so one would assume 100 per cent of us would be all for specialist teaching.) Coming from a position of someone who is a ‘music specialist’ but also is someone who helps train ‘generalist’ teachers, I think there is room for both specialist and non-specialist approaches, depending on the context of the school and what it is, in particular, that you are trying to achieve. Where the difficulty lies for me is in the defining of ‘music specialist’ status.
Terminology flip
In secondary state schools there is an agreed set of qualifications that you must possess in order to label yourself a ‘music specialist’. In most cases these are a music degree and a PGCE with QTS, but there are also some BEd (Bachelor of Education) routes into secondary music teaching. You would think that in the primary state sector the requirements would be similar, but in fact they aren't at all. Literally anyone can label themselves a ‘music specialist’ and tout for work in a primary school, whether they have music or teaching qualifications and experience or not.
This would not necessarily be a huge problem if all primary schools felt fully equipped to evaluate the quality of the music teaching presented to them. There are many skilled musicians with excellent teaching skills out there who have not gone down the formal qualifications route but who have undertaken appropriate in-service training and developed the experience to do just as good (or better!) a job as someone with all the right pieces of paper. Unfortunately, primary schools often feel ill-equipped to make professional judgements about music, and the upshot is that unsuitable candidates can be waved through into positions for which they are not the best fit.
I think part of the reason for this is the use of the ‘specialist’ and ‘non-specialist’ labels. In effect, schools are being subconsciously indoctrinated with the notion that music is a ‘specialist’ subject and therefore ‘ordinary’ teachers are not equipped to pass judgement on it. The result can be that a self-identifying specialist is brought in and never questioned, challenged, observed or quality assured. I really like Stakelum & Baker's (2013) take on this terminology when they suggest that in primary settings it is the norm to be a ‘generalist’ and an anomaly to be a ‘specialist’ – therefore it would be better to use the term ‘non-generalist’ to describe someone who only teaches one subject. This terminology flip might make previously under-confident schools realise that they have a lot to offer in terms of guiding and supporting their music ‘specialist’, which might make them more likely to engage meaningfully with them in quality assurance, performance management, and professional development processes.
Specialist standards?
Ultimately though, if initiatives such as the National Plan for Music Education are going to push for more specialist provision in primary schools, there needs to be an agreed set of guidelines and standards by which specialist status can be conferred. This would not just be of benefit to the schools in assisting them to choose the best person for the job, but also to the specialists themselves in that it would demonstrate their value when negotiating pay and conditions. I frequently see Music PPA cover jobs advertised at barely above minimum wage, when you would never, ever see a primary class teacher position advertised at such low rates. This kind of budgeting decision does not really show a high level of value being placed on music as a subject.
It is not for me to decide what the list of music specialist standards might look like, or how they might be administered. However, we might agree that it would be sensible to have a ‘quality mark’ introduced which confirms the presence of both musical and teaching skills, indicating specialist status – perhaps similar to but more bespoke than the existing DfE Teachers’ standards. In order to ensure accessibility, it would be important for this quality mark to be achievable via different routes; perhaps through a portfolio of evidence which might include qualifications earned, training undertaken, professional references, teaching observations, performance recordings, and any other verifiable evidence which shows musical and teaching ability. For those without QTS, it would also be sensible to pin this quality mark to a particular minimum spine point on the Unqualified Teachers Pay Scale, but I think I will leave that can of worms for someone else to open in the future!
