Caitlin Sandiford
The University of Sydney, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, Graduate Student
Introduction to the Report: A draft of the new NSW Syllabus for Music in years 7-10 was published publicly in August 2022. A short window of a matter of weeks was given for the “have your say” period. A number of concerned teachers and... more
Introduction to the Report: A draft of the new NSW Syllabus for Music in years 7-10 was published publicly in August 2022. A short window of a matter of weeks was given for the “have your say” period. A number of concerned teachers and academics noted a regression in the syllabus from culturally inclusive music education, and (back) towards aesthetic music education of the 1950s-1980s (Reimer, 1970): improvements that had been made in the 1995 and 2003 NSW syllabi. At the same time, the draft syllabus included an evidence base by New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA) that directly contradicted these regressive changes.
NESA’s evidence base, published in the draft syllabus, while not perfect nor up-to-date, is an excellent recognition of the philosophical and research underpinnings of the current syllabus (2003).
Teachers and researchers also noted that the draft included prescriptive lists of content-to-be-taught, in line
with current NESA policy for standardisation of syllabi, which were in direct contradiction to both NESA’s Evidence base and the syllabus directions for differentiation. We confirmed this by meeting with the (only)
NESA Music Subject Matter Expert. Since musical knowledge is culturally situated (Dunbar-Hall, 2005; Elliott, 2005; Regelski, 2005 - all cited in the Evidence Base), the monocultural manner in which so many of the prescriptive points were written again contradicted NESA’s own Evidence Base.
We triangulated our own analysis by writing to three of the most esteemed authors in NESA’s Evidence Base, Distinguished Teaching Professor of Music (Emeritus) Professor Thomas Regelski (State University of New
York at Fredonia), Emeritus Professor David Elliott (New York University), and Honorary Associate Professor Peter Dunbar-Hall (Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney). Each expert
confirmed in strong words that the content of the syllabus, especially the Stage 5 content, was not consistent with their research as cited in the NESA Evidence Base. Their correspondence is included in a section below, and they gave permission for it to be shared with NESA, with the teaching profession, and publicly.
To respond to these inherent problems, we formed a group to (a) (re-)read the Evidence Base and then (b) propose changes to the draft syllabus that would resolve the contradictions. We took the approach of rewriting rather than only providing a commentary because the NESA Music Subject Matter Expert said that this would be most useful.
NESA’s evidence base, published in the draft syllabus, while not perfect nor up-to-date, is an excellent recognition of the philosophical and research underpinnings of the current syllabus (2003).
Teachers and researchers also noted that the draft included prescriptive lists of content-to-be-taught, in line
with current NESA policy for standardisation of syllabi, which were in direct contradiction to both NESA’s Evidence base and the syllabus directions for differentiation. We confirmed this by meeting with the (only)
NESA Music Subject Matter Expert. Since musical knowledge is culturally situated (Dunbar-Hall, 2005; Elliott, 2005; Regelski, 2005 - all cited in the Evidence Base), the monocultural manner in which so many of the prescriptive points were written again contradicted NESA’s own Evidence Base.
We triangulated our own analysis by writing to three of the most esteemed authors in NESA’s Evidence Base, Distinguished Teaching Professor of Music (Emeritus) Professor Thomas Regelski (State University of New
York at Fredonia), Emeritus Professor David Elliott (New York University), and Honorary Associate Professor Peter Dunbar-Hall (Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney). Each expert
confirmed in strong words that the content of the syllabus, especially the Stage 5 content, was not consistent with their research as cited in the NESA Evidence Base. Their correspondence is included in a section below, and they gave permission for it to be shared with NESA, with the teaching profession, and publicly.
To respond to these inherent problems, we formed a group to (a) (re-)read the Evidence Base and then (b) propose changes to the draft syllabus that would resolve the contradictions. We took the approach of rewriting rather than only providing a commentary because the NESA Music Subject Matter Expert said that this would be most useful.
