The Education Committee, formed of eight cross-party Members of Parliament, met on 21 May to investigate the creation of 43 Hub Lead Organisations as part of the Music Hub Investment Programme. The programme is designed to support the revised (2022) National Plan for Music Education.
The Committee heard evidence from three panels of witnesses: music hubs, national sector organisations, and the government.
‘A year of uncertainty’
In the first panel session, the music hub representatives illustrated how some will benefit from the changes while others will not. They also depicted a process that was bureaucratic, time-consuming, and ambitious given the time-scale. However, all praised the guiding principles of the National Plan and its ambition for cross-sector collaboration.
There was strong criticism of the funding shortfall, particularly in light of inflation. Michael Summers, manager of music education at Durham Music Service, explained that over the last nine years Durham and Darlington have lost the equivalent of £1.125 million. This equates to £300,000 in 2024, which means the hub must increase costs to parents or schools, or reduce staffing, which determines the activities that are run.
Among the hubs, there were contrasted levels of success. The head of Bolton Music Service, Carolyn Baxendale, reported that Greater Manchester and Central Manchester were ‘looking forward to the future, with new opportunities in mind’. What was required was time and space for the partnership to evolve.
On the other hand, Andrew Lane, managing director of Dynamics Medway, spoke of the ‘levelling down of provision’ in Medway, and a need to pause the whole process ahead of the September start date. Medway bid unsuccessfully to become the new Kent and Medway hub. It now answers to an organisation five times its size, one with an inferior track-record, according to ACE's metrics, and one that has communicated just once since winning the bid. ‘There is no indication at all that they [Kent] are seeking to work in any partnership’, Lane said.
In a general statement after the Committee meeting, Music Mark echoed that ‘while the NPME shows good ambition, its success is not guaranteed while there is insufficient funding from government’.
‘Biting off more than they could chew’
During this session and the next, there was a fair amount criticism levelled at ACE. The missing rationale for the change to 43 hubs and ‘the dismissal of majority opinions expressed in the consultation’ (Andrew Lane) were points we'd heard before. Bridget Whyte, the CEO of Music Mark, and Stuart Darke, the Director of Legal Services, ISM, described the process as protracted or rushed.
John de la Cour, chair of the board of trustees at Severn Arts, questioned the design of the Investment Programme, drawing on his experience as a professional funder. ‘The whole thing was being thrown up in the air, and you do not do that if you are not extremely clear as to what benefits you want to get from this’. Nor, he argued, ‘Do you give the architects of the plan the responsibility to monitor its failure or progress. You would engage independents to do this with fresh eyes, especially when you are dealing with a plan that has very wide ambitions but a funding programme behind it that is completely unable to meet those expectations.’
‘Participation versus quality and progression’
The session involving the ISM, the MU and Music Mark gave a broad perspective, including the journey thus far. Music Mark made an important point that a hub is a concept, not a partnership, and is ‘more than about mergers’.
The panel questioned if the new structure would be more effective than the old, and whether it would lead, as claimed, to wider participation or greater consistency. There was frustration at how schools weren't always part of the conversation. The panel was also unclear about what counted as a good outcome in the eyes of the DfE – particularly with quality and progress – beyond the numbers, and flagged the potential for inequality in provision.
Bridget Whyte, CEO, Music Mark; Chris Walters, National Organiser, Education and Health & Wellbeing, MU; Stuart Darke, Director of Legal Services, ISM
The pressing problem of some hubs removing support for the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) for VMTs was also raised. Further, the MU was concerned at the government's lack of clarity around VMT pay and terms. At one point, a Committee member asked: ‘Have zero-hours contracts reared their ugly head?’. Chris Walters, the MU's National Organiser, Education and Health & Wellbeing, confirmed they had, for about a third of the workforce.
Walters spoke for many when he explained that ‘the problem was rolling the NPME out: the hub restructuring, the monitoring, the funding behind it’. And, crucially, ‘Whether the ambition is serious enough to make it statutory and to make it accountable in schools.’
‘Economies/diseconomies of scale’
The last session involved the DfE defending its position on funding, the Investment Programme process, and the NPME.
On the selection process for hubs, the Committee heard how there were three models for consultation in January 2023. The first was regional, the second involved around 87 hubs, and the third represented the ‘middle ground’. The example given for the last of these – the one that was adopted – was maths hubs, of which there were 34 across England.
Jenny Oldroyd, Director for Curriculum and Qualifications of the DfE, explained: ‘While the current hubs very much preferred keeping the current geographies … some of the organisations that are not involved directly with hubs but work with them preferred regional models. The success of the hubs programme is not just about meeting the needs of the hubs themselves; it is about meeting the needs of all the organisations that work with hubs to deliver music education and co-curricular activities in those areas.’
Of the funding challenges, including for administration roles, the DfE pointed to the benefits of economies of scale that apply to larger areas. This was supported by independent research commissioned by the department.
The Schools Minister, Damian Hinds, gave a number of examples across education where economies of scale brought real benefits. Ian Mearns, the Labour MP for Gateshead, responded: ‘The thing is, Damian, there are economies of scale and there are diseconomies of scale’, giving an example of the hundred miles between Darlington and Berwick which, nonetheless, came together under a northeast consortium to try and share training. The point chimed with evidence heard earlier of music hubs serving smaller rural areas being disadvantaged.
Of the redrawn geographical areas, the DfE believed that, on balance, rural areas would benefit from agglomeration. The director pointed to the advantages in having ‘a cultural capital of an urban centre in their area’, and of being able to share good practice and CPD, besides funding.
Regarding the ambitious timeline – then five months – for HLOs to have the new system up and running, the DfE understood ‘that time was needed for partnerships to reach maturity’. Oldroyd continued: ‘That does not mean they need 10 years to get started or to start working with those models … The five months is about being operationally ready.’
Minister of State for Schools, Rt Hon. Damian Hinds; Jenny Oldroyd, Director for Curriculum and Qualifications, DfE
Discussion turned to the backdrop – the NPME. Regarding what metrics could be used to measure against this, the Minister said that the ‘single biggest one was the hour-a-week’, but that others were being developed in collaboration with ACE.
On whether the NPME was ‘at breaking point’, he responded: ‘No. I think the NPME is an ambitious, forward-looking document that we have to deliver on. With the aspects that we have in place and the excitement there is around making music in schools, I think we have every reason to believe that we can.’
In a statement soon after the meeting, the MU claimed that the DfE was ‘unable to shed any real light on the points raised. Walters continued: ‘I had hoped that they would provide some justification for the reduction of hubs, and ideally show some insight into the complexity of music education as a whole. Questions on sector consultation and funding were batted away.’
The ISM was similarly unmoved. ‘Sadly, the answers provided by the Minister did nothing to explain how the Investment Programme will improve the delivery of music education,’ said Stuart Darke. ‘We also received no assurances regarding funding or how the success of the restructured hubs will be benchmarked.’
‘Dear Minister’
Two days later, Robin Walker MP, chair of the Committee, wrote to the Minister. The letter seeks further clarification around the reduction in hubs and how music education will be funded.
It asks, too, how hubs will meet the cost of contributions to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, adding: ‘We were deeply concerned to hear that the removal of support from non-local-authority-based hubs for employer contributions to the TPS has resulted in hubs exiting the scheme, with 1,100 teachers potentially affected.’
With the UK general election now announced, most observers doubt whether the Committee meeting or letter will lead to a significant change in policy. All seem resigned to waiting for the new incoming government.
In the event of a Labour majority, the Musicians’ Union, affiliated to the party, ‘hoped that it was listening closely’, Walters said. ‘To what extent do they understand, acknowledge, and have a plan for addressing the points that were raised?’
