The quality and accessibility of primary school music education - Provision, perceptions and hopes in six non-metropolitan schools

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Aldword

The study examines how quality and accessibility of primary school music education vary across six non-metropolitan schools in an Australia cross-border region. It replicates techniques from the National Review of School Music Education and finds substantial variation in outcomes, but not mainly due to local awareness or enthusiasm. Instead, deficiencies are linked to high staff turnover in short-term or fractional music teacher roles, inadequate physical space arrangements, and additional resourcing limitations. It contextualizes perceptions and hopes about specialist and generalist teaching provision.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages14

Reading Time35 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Quality and accessibility in the National Review of School Music Education

Definition of quality and its limitations

Strengths and concerns in music education quality

Explanations: status and curriculum integration

Teachers’ calibre, workload, and specialist vs non-specialist teaching

Accessibility and equity of access

The quality and accessibility of primary school music education: Provision, perceptions and hopes in six non-metropolitan schools Adam Hardcastle Monash University Abstract The National Review of School Music Education has systematically documented the variations in quality and accessibility of school music education in Australia. Rural and remote schools were found to be particularly vulnerable to relatively poorer quality and accessibility. These findings were not new; they echoed similar observations made by official, academic and practitioner observers over many years. This article recounts an empirical study, replicating some of the National Review’s investigatory techniques, that tests the applicability of its observations and findings to six primary schools located in a non-metropolitan cross-border region. It concludes that the quality of the music education indeed varies considerably but that the deficiencies are not principally due to insufficient awareness or enthusiasm at the local school level. Rather they arise from a high turnover of staff in short-term or fractional music teacher positions, from inadequate physical space arrangements within most (but not all) of these schools, and from other resourcing limitations. Key words: primary school music education; educational quality; rural and remote schools; specialist and generalist teachers. Australian Journal of Music Education 2009:1, 38-51 Quality and accessibility in the National Review of School Music Education Prominent among the goals of the National Review of School Music Education, which reported its findings in 2005, was to investigate and make recommendations about “the current quality of music education in Australian schools”(DEST, 2005, p. 52) . Its Report defined “quality” in a rather loose fashion: that is,“the general standard of music education including the effectiveness of learning, short and long-term benefits and the value of music education”(DEST, 2005, p. 52). This conflates what seem to be separate issues of quality, purpose and value. In fact, what the Report writes about in terms of “quality” is, sensibly, mostly limited to the initial part of this definition, that is,“the general standard of music education including the effectiveness of learning”(DEST, 2005, p. 104) . The Report found “both strengths and areas of concern”. It emphasised that “there are some fine examples of school music programmes”(DEST, 2005, p. 104), with the main factors behind the “success of music programmes within schools” being “the dedication, enthusiasm and expertise of music teachers, the practical and enjoyable nature of the teaching programmes, the support of school principals and school executives, and endorsement of school music programmes by parents and the wider community”(DEST, 2005, p. xii) . But overall the conclusion of the Report in relation to quality is equivocal at best and seriously critical in many respects: [I]n general terms there is a lack of consistent quality in music education and a lack of consistency in the provision of music education. For some students, no formal music education is provided; for others, music education is fragmentary, delivered non-continuously and lacking the sequential development that is so critical for a solid grounding in music. It is sometimes taught by teachers who are ill-prepared to do so. (DEST, 2005, p. 104) The main explanation given by the Report for the deficiencies in quality was an apparent deficiency in status, understood as the “relative position or standing of music education in the eyes of teachers, parents, students and the wider community”(DEST, 2005, p. 52). Status, according to the Report, was“seen as an overarching issue in relation to music education” in relation to “the disparity between the status given to music in schools compared with other subject areas” and “the large amounts of lip service paid yet low priority given to music in schools overall”(DEST, 2005,

FAQs

What was the purpose of this empirical study about music education?

To test how applicable the National Review’s observations and findings are to six primary schools in a non-metropolitan cross-border region.

According to the National Review, why does music education quality vary?

It points to inconsistent quality and provision, and emphasizes issues such as status of music education, curriculum prioritization, and continuity in sequential learning.

What factors are highlighted as causes of deficiencies in these schools’ music education?

High turnover of staff in short-term or fractional music teacher positions, inadequate physical space arrangements in most schools, and other resourcing limitations.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by Aldword