§ Elizabeth House, York Road, London SE1 7PH
§ Telephone 01–928 9222
§ From the Secretary of State
§ The Lord Vaizey,
§ 24 Heathfield Terrace,
§ London W4 4JE.
§ February
§ I am sorry not to have replied earlier to your letter of 7 December about the Gulbenkian Foundation Report on the training of musicians. However you will know from Gordon Oakes' replies to Parliamentary Questions that we have been studying the Report in some detail. I would like to take this opportunity to tell you that I share Gordon Oakes' view of the excellence of this report, which calls for the most careful consideration by those concerned.
§ In your letter you drew my attention to five distinct matters on which the Report makes specific recommendations. I will deal with these in turn.
§ 1. SPECIALIST MUSIC SCHOOLS
§ In commenting on the Committee's recommendations in respect of the specialist music schools I should say that I can only discuss the four in England: St. Mary's Edinburgh, is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. The suggestion that there should be an extension of public funding of the schools is not, of course, a completely new idea. The special arrangements under which the Yehudi Menuhin School—and the Royal Ballet Lower School—receive an annual direct grant from the Government have not unnaturally attracted the interest of at least two of the other schools, but an extension of the arrangements would not, I think, be justified.
36W§ We recognise a limited need for specialised training of children of exceptional promise in music or dancing beyond that which the maintained sector could reasonably be expected to provide, but we believe that the main thrust in improving musical training at school age should be through the maintained sector, in which opportunities are steadily—if unevenly—improving. As the Committee themselves observe, the Government has put no difficulties in the way of local education authorities helping individual children attend non-maintained schools on the strength of their musical ability, and this balance of response to the needs of musical children seems to me to be about right.
§ The suggestion that specialist music schools might become maintained is, initially at least, very much a matter for the Governors of the schools and any local education authorities interested in accepting such a responsibility. Proposals to maintain schools have to be submitted to me in accordance with Section 13 of the Education Act 1944 and I have to consider them in relation to all the relevant circumstances. If a local authority were interested they would probably want to satisfy themselves that they had a need for such facilities which could not otherwise be satisfied and that other local authorities would be prepared to co-operate in sending children to the school, given that they would be liable for payment of an "extra-district" fee.
§ 2. THE ROLE OF THE UNIVERSITIES
§ I understand that the UGC will be replying separately to the letter you have sent them about university departments of music and about the London music colleges. As you will appreciate the Committee's proposals relating to the London music colleges raise fundamental questions. This would be particularly the case for the Guildhall School as at present it is outside the public sector of education. I have no doubt that the governing bodies of the colleges will be considering the Committee's recommendations carefully. Any initiation to change the colleges' states would have to originate with them. In this connection you may be interested to know that I expect to receive the Report of the Oakes Working Group in the fairly near future. I understand that the Report is likely to follow the lines predicted in Gordon Oakes' letter to you of 27th June last year in that it will concentrate on the system of management and control within which the planning of individual courses can take place.
§ 3. PROFESSIONAL EMPHASIS FOR THE MUSIC COLLEGES
§ In general, I would agree with your view that the colleges should become more professionally oriented. My Department's decision to pay deficiency grant to the Royal Academy, the Royal College and Trinity College was taken because we were convinced of the need for governmental support for conservatoires of music in London. If the colleges did not play a unique role Government aid would not be justified. However the particular roles which the colleges might play in the future, and the length of course required, do I think need a lot of examination from the educational standpoint before a final decision can be taken.
37W§ 4. AWARDS
§ On the question of awards, the relevant recommendations are Nos. 10, 19 and 21. The designation of a 4-year degree course would have significant financial implications of course, but would pose no undue difficulty so far as our Awards Regulations are concerned. Dip HE and degree courses already attract mandatory awards, so the problem is really that of the student without 2 A levels who wishes to take a degree equivalent course. If recommendation 10 were adopted, we could amend the Awards Regulations so that the preliminary general education requirements specified in them (which apply to students on degree equivalent courses only) were waived for holders of the Dip HE and this would solve the difficulty pointed out in the Report. Recommendation 19 is essentially for local education authorities in their administration of discretionary awards (there is no requirement that a student qualifying for a mandatory award must progress direct from school to higher education: the student would qualify for such an award equally after a period of work). On recommendation 21, we shall need to consider further the possibility of central support for conductors studying at postgraduate level.
§ 5. TEACHER TRAINING
§ On the question of teacher training, it is of course difficult at this stage to predict the likely output of newly trained specialist music teachers in the 1980s, but in general the Report's approach to the initial training of such teachers is much in line with our own thinking.
§ In relation to the training of non-graduate classteachers, the idea that this should be concentrated in institutions with a strong commitment to music is one with which I have considerable sympathy. You will know that the recently published Green Paper "Education in Schools" proposes that the growth of centres of scholarship and professional expertise should be fostered within the reorganised training system so that, over a period, some institutions would come to be recognised as national or regional centres of development and resources in particular fields and subject areas. In asking training institutions to re-work their plan for future provision, following my decision to further reduce the size of the system to some 46,700 places by 1981, the Department has suggested that institutions may wish to take this concept into account and that, in co-ordinating the plans, each region should ensure that it retains an adequate source of expertise in subject areas such as music, and also that existing, substantial provision for subjects which require specialised or expensive resources and facilities is not dissipated but utilised as fully as possible. We believe, however, that such centres should develop from local strengths rather than be imposed from outside and that they should consist of a network of co-ordinated provision rather than a simple list of individual institutions. This is, I think, important if the Report's proposal that teachers in general and primary school teachers in particular, should be trained in institutions where music is played and enjoyed and where options in the subject are available, is to be implemented.
38W§ Training institutions have been asked to return their re-worked plan to the Department by the end of February. It is then our intention to analyse them and offer further guidance as necessary and you may be sure that we shall take the Report's recommendations into account in this, although the problems of adequate staffing and viability of teaching groups in any institution may mean that the final pattern which emerges cannot be as clear-cut as the Report envisages.
§ In relation to the training of qualified instrumentalist teachers there is a problem, as the Report recognises, about the provision of a course of initial teacher training leading to qualified teacher status at Trinity College of Music. If we are to effect the necessary reductions in the annual output of newly qualified teachers, no additions to the 46,700 training places now determined upon can be permitted. Whilst in principle the concept of integrating the provision of such a course within the targets of an existing training institution is acceptable, I can foresee serious difficulties in its implementation, since training institutions are already finding it difficult to incorporate existing courses within their much reduced numbers. This is an area which will need to be explored in some depth with my officials.
§ As to the content of training courses, you will recognise that there is a gap in the arrangements for development in this area. Discussions are currently taking place with the object of establishing a trans-binary body for this purpose which, if successful, might provide a suitable forum for consideration of the Report's ideas.
§ I agree with the emphasis you place, both in the Report and in your letter, on the importance of in-service training in view of the relatively static teacher force we expect over the next few years. The Government's expenditure plans, outlined in the Green Paper, envisage a four-fold increase by 1981 in the number of teachers released for in-service and induction training. I hope and expect that in-service training for music teachers will share in this expansion although it is of course the responsibility of the local authority to consider the needs of its schools and the most appropriate way of meeting those needs. There is scope for much variety here, both in the teachers' mode of attendance for in-service training and in the type of institution providing in-service courses. In this context I welcome the development of music centres as a valuable resource and stimulus for improving the quality of music teaching. However I agree with the statement in paragraph 185 of the Report that courses should be related to the teacher's particular school. This is something which was touched upon in the Green Paper and it is, I think, the most effective way of ensuring a match between a school's needs and the in-service provision which is made.
§ Many of the general issues raised by this report are of relevance over a wider area than music education alone, and indeed have been mentioned by you in correspondence with Gordon Oakes and myself and with Sir James Hamilton at intervals over the past 12 months. I think it might now be useful if you, and 39W perhaps two or three members of your Committee if you thought it helpful, would come up to the Department to have a general talk with Gordon Oakes and myself about the awards position in the area of music, dance and drama. If you agree, perhaps your Secretary could get into touch with mine to suggest a suitable date.
§ Shirley Williams.