Those of us who have been directly involved in music education over the years have had no option but to develop a wide and increasingly sophisticated repertoire of arguments for justifying the place of music in the curriculum. Many of us have found this constant pressure irksome to say the least, especially when faced with colleagues in the core subjects brandishing sheaves of seemingly incontrovertible evidence produced by government, praising the 'standards' and 'tests' agendas to the skies.

Meanwhile, the arts and the humanities have, by common consent (although not in the government's view), become marginalised and devalued. Primary teachers feel that their professional judgement has been eroded over time, and many experienced professionals now see themselves as unable to teach music and other important elements of the curriculum. Newly-qualified primary teachers often take up their first post having had no training whatsoever in the teaching of music.

The recent publication of the Cambridge Primary Review led by Robin Alexander is a welcome and timely analysis. The report makes intriguing reading (an adjective not normally applied to such publications), identifying as it does four significant challenges facing the curriculum: it is dominated by the core subjects, driven by the Key Stage 2 tests, overloaded and excessively prescriptive.  

The government's response to the report has been dismissive, even contemptuous. This is hardly surprising since the report advocates the abolition of the Primary National Strategy, the empowerment of local authorities to set flexible local curricula, an aggressive (sic) campaign to reinstate the arts and humanities in primary schools and the transformation of the current testing arrangements at Key Stage 2. The DCSF asserts that the report is 'insulting to hard-working teachers' in describing current educational provision for children as 'deficient'. However, most teachers will recognise this as disingenuous posturing on the part of the DCSF; Alexander cites the government's micro-management and over-prescriptive approach as having been the very cause of most damage to the teaching profession, and most teachers would agree with him.

The two-tier curriculum of English and maths versus 'the rest' has been the approved model for at least a century. Depending on which research one reads, the national strategies have had an impact on raising standards ranging from 'detrimental', through 'negligible' to 'significant'. Whatever the truth of the matter, Alexander contends that it is now time that ministers finally paid attention to research showing that high standards of achievement and a broad, balanced curriculum are linked.  

During the consultation period, various national organisations representing music education submitted responses. Interestingly (and astutely), the report points out that whilst they rehearse many of the well-understood benefits of engaging in music, 'there has been an increasing tendency to seek to justify the arts by reference to outcome measures of social or economic utility which have little to do with how the arts are experienced'. Alexander goes on to say that the benefits listed by some of the national organisations actually omit to mention 'the unique and irreplaceable aural, imaginative, emotional, intellectual and kinaesthetic power of music as music' adding that even arts organisations have felt obliged to accede to 'creeping utilitarianism'.

What an indictment of our willingness to capitulate! Nonetheless, it is a welcome one if it is to bring us back to our senses. Anthropologists have yet to discover a society which does not have music at its very heart; as musicians, we must now assert the right to discuss and to take part in music on its own terms, rather than in relation to what it can service or support.  

The Cambridge Primary Review pulls no punches, and Alexander is now issuing a call to arms for an 'aggressive' campaign to reinstate the arts in primary schools. We need to consider carefully our response to that call.