HIGHER EDUCATION BASE FUNDING REVIEW: SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION ON TEACHER EDUCATION IN MUSIC

SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION FROM THE MUSIC COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA: TEACHER EDUCATION IN MUSIC

Submission prepared by Dr Richard Letts AM, Executive Director, Music Council of Australia, with Professor Gary McPherson, Ormond Chair of Music and Director, Melbourne Conservatorium of Music, University of Melbourne March 31, 2011 This submission to the Review is supplementary to the Music Council of Australia submission concerning tertiary music institutions. It takes up issues around the music education of school teachers, especially primary school generalist classroom teachers, conducted under the auspices of university education departments. Music education is only one component of the broad responsibilities of the education departments, but it is a responsibility that generally speaking, they do not meet. Their graduates, if they have received only the mandated education in music and have no musical expertise acquired elsewhere, cannot be competent to deliver the music curriculum even though the state systems require them to do so. PLEASE NOTE that since this is a supplementary submission, there is no attempt to provide answers to some questions.

1. General principles governing the level and distribution of government investment in higher education learning and teaching

Q1.1 Government investment in higher education has been justified in terms of delivering benefits to the economy, benefits to society and equity of access for students from all socioeconomic backgrounds. Should these principles continue to be applied, and if so how should they be used to determine the appropriate level of government subsidy for the cost of universities’ learning and teaching activities?

The Music Council of Australia supports those principles. In order to achieve the listed benefits, the tertiary education system depends upon an intake of students who have achieved an appropriate level of competence for young people approaching adulthood and professional life. If students have depended for their early music education on the music education provided in public or Catholic primary schools, they are at a severe disadvantage because, excepting in Queensland and Tasmania where specialist music teachers are provided in primary schools, it is very likely that either they have had no music education or their music education has been delivered by a classroom teacher lacking musical competence.

Music’s contribution to the economy

Music makes a significant contribution to cultural identity, social cohesion and economic strength of the country. The latter alone is estimated at 6.8 billion in 2007 figures, involving over 90,000 paid musicians (see Appendix 1). This benefit to the economy should not dominate the rationale for provision of higher education in music or indeed, other subjects. Economic success is not an end in itself, but serves other ends such as the pursuit of knowledge, increasing personal and societal options for a rich and meaningful life, the expansion of the opportunities for cultural expression and communication. Heightened musical activity builds cultural capital. This triple bottom line needs to be taken seriously.

Music’s contribution to society

Music is practised in all cultures, even the most poverty-stricken. It must be concluded that it is serving some universal human need. In Australia, as a Western consumer society, the need is demonstrated in a concrete way by the crowd and the size and complexity of the industry that has grown up to satisfy it. The economic and participation data are evidence (see Appendix 1). What can be said about music’s value to society? Music gives spiritual and emotional sustenance. It is a core aspect of most religious practices. Many not religiously inclined still turn to music to take them to a ‘deeper’ place. Music is food for the intellect. We refer to the study of music’s place in history or society but more especially to the study of the audible structures and processes of the music itself. Deep study of great music can reveal extraordinary intricacy – a mathematics-like complexity put to the service of profound expression, as in the works of Bach and many before and since. Music creates social bonds. It is a source of identity, both personal and shared. We can experience through their music the world views of other cultures, indeed, the very cores of their being. Western classical music has been recorded for over a millennium – on paper – and this music is performed live today. Music-making requires the simultaneous utilisation of a very broad range of skills: expressive, creative, intellectual, emotional, kinesthetic, social and more. Research shows that music-making activates simultaneously many parts of the brain; it suggests and is close to concluding that music study uniquely benefits brain development. This may be the underlying basis for the findings of a large number of other studies showing correlations between continuous and extended study of music making and enhanced outcomes in other areas of study including literacy and numeracy. Some musical genres are unique local expressions, others have become international ‘languages’ – e.g. rock, jazz, classical. Australian audiences hear the great international exponents via the media and even in live performance. They expect our musicians to show similar accomplishment. Therefore, our musicians function in an international market, even if they stay at home. Some, of course, also attempt to win audiences elsewhere. We want them to succeed, and why should they not? But we do too little to help them. As in many areas of endeavour, any citizen is able to engage at an informal level in music making and consumption. The ‘folk music’ of the day can still be passed on by oral transmission. However, music as a great artform requires serious and prolonged study and in Western culture the place for that study is for the most part the university/conservatorium of music. Within the institution the key figure is the individual one-to-one mentor.

Equity of access

Equity of access depends not only upon financial support to disadvantaged students once they are engaged in tertiary education, but the preparation in the pre-tertiary years that will affect their eligibility for admission. There is both inequity and general inadequacy in the provision of music education to students in the school years and the consequence is that there is major advantage to financially privileged students at the time of high school graduation and university entrance. The funding of school music education is not within the domain of base funding to higher education, but the deficiencies of school music education lie partly within the method of delivery of music education in schools and the associated very serious inadequacies in the tertiary music education of school teachers. The report of the National Review of School Music Education, Augmenting the Diminished, gives as its second Strategic Direction: “To ensure every Australian child has opportunities to participate and engage in continuous sequential, developmental music education programmes. There is very wide agreement in the profession on the “continuous, sequential, developmental” formulation for the music curriculum. These characteristics were adopted as the criteria for an estimate of the number of schools offering a credible music education program. The estimate was made by extrapolation from the study Trends in the Provision of Music Education in Schools. It showed that 88% of independent schools have such music programs, but only 23% of public schools. A survey by the Australian Music Association showed that 88% of parents believe that all school children should have the opportunity to study music. It is an interesting coincidence that the provision among independent schools matches statistically the desire among parents, but of course those school programs are guided by what the parents wish to pay for. That link is lost with most state schools where broad funding decisions are made by the state. In some public schools, parents raise funds to pay for after-school musical activities and instruction but such instruction is not bound to deliver a developmental, sequential curriculum and furthermore these programs will generally be found in the more affluent areas where parents have the skills and funds to set them up. There is thus an enormous inequity of opportunity between independent and public schools and most students of public schools will not have received a music education that compensates for the subsequent lack of music education in their undergraduate education, should they choose to become primary school teachers.

Q1.2 What principles should determine the appropriate balance of resources contributed by:

• Government;
• students; and
• other sources

towards the cost of undergraduate and postgraduate education?=== MCA proposes that the current structure consisting of three basic funding sources for tertiary music education be maintained in principle, but not in funding level:

• The government contribution paid directly to the universities for teaching music should cover the majority of the actual costs of delivering degrees. The current banding provides the right framework for this. What is not correct is the present band for music on the basis of its principle modes of delivery. While it is now grouped with Clinical Psychology, Allied Health, Foreign Languages and Visual and Performing Arts, it should be grouped with dentistry, to which it is akin as a resource-intense, lab-based discipline (see below). In the context of university departments of education, insofar as they take responsibility for music education for classroom teachers, these considerations still apply. If teachers are to teach children to make music, they themselves should be able to make music. The cost of delivering those skills should be calculated taking into account the need to provide one to one instruction and small group instruction, and education departments should be provided with funds to cover those costs.
• Student contributions should continue to contribute to the costs of delivering education degrees roughly at the current level. HECS fees are and should be connected to expected income on completion of the degree. As this is modest for teachers, the HECS fee should remain roughly in its current range.
• Other sources should cover all activities which are not directly part of the universities’ tertiary training brief.

Q1.3 What other principles, if any, should influence the level and distribution of government subsidies for tuition costs in higher education?

The purpose of music education generally is to give the population a deeper understanding of music and an ability to participate in music making, so enriching lives and integrating a broad range of abilities that include but go beyond literacy and numeracy. A musically educated public is also a discerning market for music and will assist in lifting Australian musical practice internationally. The other purpose of music education is to prepare some for work in the music sector as musicians, composers, or an array of supporting roles in management, production, marketing etc. It should be understood that the graduates of Australia’s tertiary music institutions enter an international market. Most literally, some will seek to succeed with overseas audiences. But the international market and international standards exist in Australia. Australian audiences are very familiar with international standards through their continuing access to performers from across the globe, whether experienced through recordings, broadcasts or the web, or through live performances on tour to Australia, or through Australian travel overseas. They seek those standards and the appeal of the home-grown is only one of the factors that will influence their choices. Sales of recordings of Australian performers account for less than 30% of total Australian sales. Australian tertiary music institutions also function in the international market. The best Australian students consider whether they are better served by attending an Australian conservatorium or a foreign one. Australian music institutions compete with institutions from other countries in attracting foreign, fee-paying students. The Review states an interest in achievement of international standards. In music, abilities depend upon early biological development as well as formal instruction and informal experience. Early learning is crucial. Music education does not begin at university, as is the case with some other disciplines. The achievement of international standards depends in part upon early education which depends upon musically competent teaching in school. The Music Council recently conducted a little survey of the core members of the internationally lauded Australian Chamber Orchestra. The core members play string instruments: violin, viola, cello and double bass. Five of the nine respondents were taking music lessons by the age of 5. One began at 3 years of age, three began at age 4. One more began at each of ages 5, 6, 7, 8. The bass player began at age 11; it is a very large instrument and not as nimble. These students depended upon private individual teaching rather than school programs and in Australia, access to that teaching depends usually upon family affluence. The music component of teacher education courses cannot be delivered only in large classes. It requires training in musical performance, which is costly, and therefore in the provision of additional funds for that purpose to the education departments.==2. A globally competitive level of base funding for course quality and student engagement==

Q2.1 What are the best international measures of course quality that would provide appropriate benchmarks to inform judgments about the appropriate level of base funding for Australian universities?

In Q1.1, the inequity of provision to students at public cf. independent schools was noted. This inequity is exacerbated by the fact that music education in independent schools tends to be provided by music specialists but in most public primary schools is provided, if provided at all, by classroom generalists who are afforded only a token education in music in their preservice courses. In the following, we put in context the tertiary music training of primary school generalist teachers in particular, the level of training that will provide them with the competence to deliver the National Curriculum, and some pertinent global comparisons. The fundamental musical skills are most effectively learned in preschool and primary school years. In all states, music instruction in preschool years is the responsibility of early childhood teachers and carers who are required only to have generalist skills. In all states except Queensland and Tasmania, responsibility for delivering music education in primary school is assigned to classroom generalist teachers. In Queensland and Tasmania, specialist music teachers are employed in primary schools. Music Council of Australia studies have shown that the mandatory music instruction offered in preservice training for early childhood teachers and carers, responsible for children ages 0 to 8 years, takes up on average 20 hours in an undergraduate degree and 9 hours in a graduate degree. Average mandatory music training in the preservice four-year undergraduate degree for primary school generalist teachers, responsible for students in years K to 6 or 7, is 17 hours out of approximately 1250 total hours, and in the two-year preservice postgraduate degree, half of that. The provision across undergraduate degrees ranges from zero hours to 54 hours. (Mandatory instruction in the other art forms is similar.) With an average of 17 hours music instruction, these teachers are responsible for delivering the music curriculum across seven or eight year levels. This is quite unrealistic and can only lead to the result that is evident: teachers have neither the competence nor confidence to teach music (except for random individuals who have acquired skills from beyond their official training), so it is not taught. This is the case even in NSW, where music is a mandatory part of the curriculum. Here, we concern ourselves with the music training of primary school generalist teachers, which occurs usually in university Faculties of Education. We note that at the secondary level, music in all systems is taught by specialist music teachers. There is fairly good coverage but many schools do not have programs or are insufficiently resourced. In the present context, the main point of interest about secondary school programs is that they face the difficulty that there can be no assumptions about the prior music learning of children transferring from primary school except that there will be enormous differences of competence. This can be a source of great difficulty in delivering an effective music program. The state accreditation systems do not inquire about applicants’ competence in any subject. If they have the requisite degree, no more questions are asked, as we understand it. This means that the competence to teach any subject has been decided not by the future employers, but by the universities. In the case of music, the universities have not made responsible decisions. There will be a National Curriculum in music. The Music Council believes that to ensure that students receive competent instruction, at all levels of schooling it should be taught by music specialists. If the responsibility were given to specialist music teachers, the Review would consider the quality and cost of their training and indeed, should do so. However, the decision to take that path is beyond the brief of the Review and in any case it will be made after the Review reports. Assuming that in all states except Queensland and Tasmania, the responsibility for teaching music remains with the generalist classroom teacher, the universities should provide the training that equips the teachers to deliver the National Curriculum. The teachers will need to possess the skills they are attempting to teach. There is clear agreement that the National Curricula in the arts will be based around active art- making, not the “passive” study of the arts. Primary generalist teachers therefore need practical skills in music-making as well as knowledge about music and knowledge and skills in music pedagogy. The music-making skills should suffice to engage upper primary school children who have received continuous, sequential, developmental music instruction from K onwards. To circumvent problems in acquiring adequate resources to provide instrumental instruction, all teachers should have these skills in vocal music, as well as instrumental music wherever possible. To give teachers that competence will require major reconsideration of the music education component of current preservice courses for primary school teachers. More time must be assigned. Some of that time can continue to be used in class instruction, but it must also include one-to-one and small-group instruction in music-making. Acquisition of the skills requires that the trainees are provided with the continuous, sequential, developmental learning throughout the university courses that they will later provide to their students. The Music Council suggests that the mandatory music instruction should provide for 90 contact minutes per week throughout the course. This solution is based on the current practice in most state and Catholic systems of assigning responsibility for music instruction in primary schools to classroom generalist teachers. Global comparisons. In the PISA rankings of school performance in reading, mathematics and science in 2009, a number of countries ranked higher than Australia in all three subject areas. Those countries, with the combined scores for the three subjects, were:

The provision of school music instruction in these countries is as follows: China (Shanghai) Music education provision. 2 hours/week in primary school. Teacher qualifications. All classes are taught by music specialists except in some rural areas, where teacher training has lagged. Hong Kong Music education provision. Policy is that the primary schools will give 70-100 minutes/week to music, though in this regard schools have some autonomy. Teacher qualifications. Teachers are specialists in two or more subjects; there are no primary school generalists. See below. Finland Music education provision. 45 minutes/week, sometimes 2 x 45 minutes, to 7th grade, elective thereafter. In 13% of schools, additional special music classes of 3-4 hours/week. Also, there are additional possibilities in the highly subsidised municipal music schools, complementary to schools, ubiquitous in Europe. Teacher qualifications. In 15% of primary schools, music is taught by specialists, in 85% by generalists. However, half of the generalists – those who mainly have the responsibility for teaching music – have a music specialty. The music study required is of the order of 940 hours, comprising up to 560 contact hours and the remainder personal work. The normal music training of a generalist is about 320 hours, including 270 contact hours. Secondary specialists study music for up to 8,800 hours. Singapore Music education provision. Mandatory years 1-8. Years 1-4, two 30- minute periods per week. Years 5-6, one 30-minute period/week. Secondary, one 35-minute period/week. Beyond year 8, music is an elective. Teacher qualifications. There are generalist primary teachers but increasingly the music teachers have specialist qualifications in English, maths and music; secondary school music teachers have qualifications in music and one other subject. Therefore, there are similarities to the Hong Kong model. Current teachers are encouraged to take music PD courses. However, all music and art teachers are now being trained to specialise in only one subject. South Korea Music education provision. 2 hours per week years 1-7, 1 hour/week grades 8-10. Teacher qualifications. Primary school music is taught by generalists, with some specialists. During preservice training, generalists can declare a major, including music major. Total hours of music instruction required of a generalist teacher are 158-161. Secondary school music is taught by specialists. Japan Music education provision. 45 minutes/week through primary school, generalist teacher grades 1-4, specialist 5-6. Elective in secondary school. Teacher qualifications. Generalist primary school teachers for grades 1-4 receive 3 semesters of music training, 100 minutes per week, total 75 hours. Canada Music education provision. Primary 1-1.5 hours per 5 or 6 day cycle, Manitoba, secondary is mostly elective. Variance between provinces. Teacher qualifications. There is no uniformity. New Zealand Music education provision. Required years 1-8, though unclear whether it is continuous, then elective thereafter. Teacher qualifications. The “training in music for elementary classroom teachers is minimal and most cannot hope to teach the syllabus with the training they have been given.” (Prof. John Drummond, University of Otago). Australia Music education provision .Queensland, with its specialist music teachers, offers 30 minutes music per week in primary schools. In NSW, music is mandatory in years K-8, taught (or mostly not taught) by generalists in primary school, specialists in secondary; 100 hours of mandatory music in years 7-8. Other jurisdictions very variable. Overall, music is much less taught than in the non- Anglo schools in this PISA ranking. Teacher qualifications. In public schools, secondary school music is taught by music specialists who have specialist music degrees and pedagogy qualifications. In Queensland and Tasmania, primary school music is taught by specialists. In all other states it is taught by generalists. The inadequate training has been described above. It cannot be claimed that these countries excelled Australia in the PISA rankings because of the strength of their music education programs. However, it can be said that the strong inclusion of music has not prevented their superior performance. In all instances except the lower ranking Canada and New Zealand, teacher training in music for primary school teachers exceeded that provided to generalists in Australia. The Hong Kong model. Australian primary school teachers who rely on the mandatory music instruction in their generalist degrees will not be equipped to deliver the National Curriculum in music. In the course to date of developing the National Curriculum, pedagogues in many subjects such as history and even including mathematics complain that the workforce is not capable of delivering the curricula in their specialist areas. ACARA will provide curricula in all five arts areas: dance, drama, media, music and visual arts. The theory is that these curricula will be taught by primary school generalist teachers alongside their other efforts in literacy, numeracy, history, geography, sciences, languages and so on. Who among us is capable of acquiring expertise in all those subject areas? Who among is is capable of acquiring practical expertise in all of dance, drama, media arts, music and visual arts? The Hong Kong model, in which each teacher specialises in say two major areas, with perhaps also a couple of minor subjects, presumably in configurations that enable complementarity among teachers, offers a solution. Each child then sees two or three teachers per week. The combined objectives of competent teaching and pastoral care can be accomplished. Indeed, pastoral care no longer depends only on the relationship of the child with one teacher. The alternatives of semi-competent teaching by generalists, or a long procession of subject area specialists as in a high school, with little possibility of pastoral care, are averted. This, then, requires a rethinking of the tertiary training of school teachers as well as a phased restructuring of primary school education. That is a big task but one that actually provides a fundable, manageable solution to problems not only in music, or the arts, but all subject areas. There are no apparent increased recurrent costs: the same number of students are served by the same number of teachers. So far as the training in music is concerned, the issues that pertain to the education of performers and composers apply also to the music training of school teachers, except that music is only a part of their courses.

Q2.2 What are the best international measures of student engagement that would provide appropriate benchmarks to inform judgements about the appropriate level of base funding for Australian universities?

Q2.3 Is there a system of higher education funding in another country that would be a useful benchmark model to inform Australia’s review of base funding?

Q2.4 What is the connection between the level of base funding and quality outcomes?

3. The relative costs of quality teaching and student engagement at the undergraduate level

Q3.1 Do the current funding relativities reflect the relative cost of delivering undergraduate courses in particular disciplines? What, if any, relative weightings should be afforded to various discipline groups and why?

You are referred to the Music Council’s main submission. Inasmuch as university education departments are charged with producing classroom teachers with the competence to deliver the curriculum, they should be provided with the extra funds necessary to transfer music-making skills to the teachers. The music component of the teacher education courses should be funded at the level sought by the tertiary music institutions, viz Band 8 among the Funding Clusters. At present, music is placed in Band 5, with severe negative consequences.

Q3.2 What are the costs to universities of improving the quality of teaching and the quality of the student learning experience at the undergraduate level and to what extent should they be reflected in the base funding model?

The Music Council proposes that primary school teacher education should be provided weekly throughout the undergraduate years to allow the accumulation of sufficient practical competence to teach music at least weekly to any of seven or eight primary school grades. The undergraduate instruction should be sequential, continuous and developmental as will be the instruction provided by the graduates once in school positions. It should include education in singing and performance on one or more musical instruments. This should be provided for at least 30 minutes per week and obligations should be placed on students to maintain daily practice sessions. (Performance instruction for conservatorium students is in lessons of one hour or more duration. The objective for the undergraduate teachers is not to produce professional performers so a shorter lesson time should be adequate.)

Q3.3 What are the costs of engaging low SES students in undergraduate education? Should such costs be a factor in determining base funding? How might support for low SES students be maintained in the future?

Because of the inequity of provision of music education in schools, and in particular, the inadequate provision in most public and Catholic schools, there is a likelihood that low SES students will need special assistance in their music education. They are likely not to have access to a musical instrument and ways should be found to enable this, possibly by loans. It is important that they have access to adequate one to one and small group instruction. There may need to be additional remedial provision in the first year.

Q3.4 What additional costs are involved in the provision of work integrated learning and should these be considered in setting the level of base funding?

Q3.5 What proportion of a higher education teacher’s time should be spent on scholarly activity and how could the costs of scholarship be included in the base funding model? ===Q3.6 Should any research activity continue to be supported by base funding?

Q3.7 Should infrastructure investment continue to be supported by base funding?

Operating costs should be held safe from other incursions. Operating costs and capital investments should be funded from separate sources.

Q3.8 What other factors, if any, should be taken into account in determining base funding for teaching and learning in higher education?

In music, the ideal should be to produce teachers who are not just minimally competent, but are very competent and indeed, inspirational.

4. The relative costs of teaching at the postgraduate level

Q4.1 Is there a higher relative cost for postgraduate coursework degrees? If so why is there a difference and what is the extent of the difference compared to an undergraduate degree in the same discipline?

Increasingly, students enter the teaching profession through a two-year graduate degree. This halves the time available for acquisition of music skills. We suggest the need to compensate for this by a requirement either for a demonstration of musical competence as a necessity for accreditation, additional remedial provision or a requirement for achievement of competence through professional development assignments once in employment.

Q4.2 Are there other factors that contribute to the costs of postgraduate coursework degrees that should be acknowledged in the base funding?

The remedial provision proposed in Q4.1 would carry a cost.

5. The appropriate level of student contribution towards the cost of higher education tuition

Q5.1 Are there general principles that should determine the maximum contribution a student should make towards the cost of their education in a publicly funded higher education system?

The maximum fee should not discourage participation, especially among low socio- economic groups and first-in-family students.

Q5.2 In what circumstances should the level of students’ contribution towards the cost of their courses be based on factors other than the cost of their tuition?

The level of the contribution determines the final debt. There should be a realistic prospect that the debt can be repaid from the income expected in the profession.

Q5.3 Should the basis for determining the level of contribution by the student towards the cost of their tuition be different at the postgraduate level?

Presumably the graduate degree adds to the prospective income level, but on the other hand the student contribution over the additional years adds to the total debt.The level of increase of income would be modest and not justify an increase in the rate at which the student contribution is calculated.==6. A new base funding model==

Q6.1 To what extent does the base funding model provide incentives for institutions to invest in and deliver high quality teaching?

We are informed that the music component of teaching degrees has been severely reduced over the years because of declining funding to education departments. So the answer to this question is that a base funding model that does not provide adequate funds makes high quality teaching difficult or impossible.

Q6.2 Does the base funding model provide incentives for institutions to maintain strong academic standards?

Adequate base funding enables maintenance of strong academic standards. Other competitive factors may stimulate improvement.

Q6.3 What features could be incorporated in the design of a new base funding model to make it more simple, transparent and responsive to higher education providers?

It is necessary that it assesses and provides for the true cost of delivery. Higher Education Base Funding Review SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION FROM THE MUSIC COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA: TEACHER EDUCATION IN MUSIC==APPENDIX 1==

Economic contribution of the music sector

Gross value-added. In 2007, Hans Hoegh-Guldberg estimated the value of the Australian music sector at $6.8billion value-added based on 2005-06 statistics. This treats the sector as a ‘satellite account’, similar to the statistical account for tourism. Thus, it includes not only the value of live and recorded musical performance and music instruments and equipment, but the music-related aspects of industries such as education and broadcasting. It is not possible to determine a figure other than by estimate because of the inadequacies of ABS activity with regard to the music sector. The ABS publishes a table showing the standard list of industries whose GVA is quoted in the national accounts. Here are some examples from the table (converted to 2005-06 dollars assuming a uniform 5% increase in the price index from 2004-05), allowing a comparison with the music sector:

• Forestry and fishing $2.5 billion
• Electricity $13.9 billion
• Gas $1.4 billion
• Water supply, sewerage and draining services $6.3 billion
• Manufacturing: textiles, footware, clothing and leather $2.7 billion
• Wood and paper products $7.1 billion
• Printing, publishing and recorded media $11.3 billion
• Non-metallic mineral products $5.5 billion

Employment and participation. The sector is a substantial source of employment. Around 150 job categories are identified by the Music Council in its publication, The Australian Guide to Careers in Music. The following ABS figures from April 2007 show participation. They exclude hobbyists (except for the final reference), teachers, broadcasters, others in the Guldberg satellite account estimate. The ABS does not further define ‘not performers’. The employment figures from the ABS do not include all those who would be captured in the Guldberg definition in areas such as broadcasting. PERSONS INVOLVED Number of persons involved in live performance: 253,000, of whom 91,000 received payment (36%) Number involved other than in live performance: 83,000, of whom 28,000 (35%) received payment Total number involved: 336,000, of whom 119,000 (36%) received payment. TREND, PERSONS INVOLVED, 1993-2007

The total increased by 45%. The ABS does not show paid vs unpaid for 1993. Education and qualifications. 84% of musicians and 66% of composers undertook tertiary training for their principal arts occupation. 51% and 32% of these, respectively, studied at a music school or conservatorium. 33% of musicians and 12% of composers believe their most important training came from a private teacher or practising professional, but 40% of composers stated that their most important training was self- tuition. At a guess, the latter are predominantly not classical composers. Musicians more than artists in any other category continue to take private tuition as professionals (19%). While the study does not make the distinction, it is reasonable to suppose that there is a considerable difference in their participation in formal education and self- tuition between classical musicians and musicians in popular contemporary genres. At present, it would appear to be more necessary for performers to have a relevant qualification than for non-performers. However, there are many complaints within the sector about the incompetence of e.g. artist managers and even the inadequate preparation of performers. There appears to be a need for more inclusive education of those engaged in the sector, and more thorough, advanced preparation of the artists, at present constrained by lack of resources as will be demonstrated through international comparisons. WORK VS HOBBY 335,000 participants regard their music activity as work. An additional 265,000 regard it as a hobby. Total number involved is 600,000. It is in part the hobbyists to whom the culture is passed.

Author

Dr Richard Letts AM, Executive Director, Music Council of Australia, and Professor Gary McPherson, Ormond Chair of Music and Director, Melbourne Conservatorium of Music, University of Melbourne

Submitted by Richard Letts