soundADVICE report

soundADVICE! An external evaluation of soundLINCS regional workforce development of Youth Music programmes in the East Midlands - soundINCLUSION, EMEYN, EMTaP which were managed and delivered by soundLINCS during 2012/13

Commissioned from Gail Dudson by Nikki-Kate Heyes MBE, CEO soundLINCS November 2013 – March 2014

Contents

Page No.

Introduction

3

Summary of Findings

4

soundLINCS and the National Foundation for Youth Music

5

Workforce Development

6

What has changed? The External Environment

8

The Internal Environment; soundLINCS

15

Considering the Offer

17

Ways Forward

19

Appendix 1 – Planned Activity

20

Appendix 2 - Glossary of acronyms and projects

27

Appendix 3 - Funders and sponsors

29

2|Page

Introduction Workforce Development (WFD) is an essential part of community music and music education, and a core strand of soundLINCS’ strategy. This brief study considers the current effectiveness of WFD activities, and how they might be developed in future.

The brief for this study is concise; to consider and analyse the philosophy, processes, activities and results of soundLINCS’ workforce development strand from April 2012 until October 2013, and to offer suggestions for further consideration or change.

And the reason? soundLINCS has found it increasingly difficult to persuade and recruit participants to its workforce development activities over the last eighteen months. soundLINCS is not alone in experiencing difficulty in recruiting participants for its professional development strand of work. Other Musical Inclusion (MInc) grant-holders are in similar situations, and there is widespread, though anecdotal, reporting of substantial decline in take up of professional development and training offers across the arts and education sectors. This brief study is not being undertaken with any sense of isolation in highlighting the challenges, identifying the causes, or in suggesting potential solutions. The analysis is specific, though the problems and solutions may be more widely experienced and used. soundLINCS stands out in being open about the drop in demand for ‘continuing professional development’ (CPD) activities; it has not lowered its expectations or targets, or disguised or denied the problem, nor has it ‘papered’ WFD activities. It has openly identified the problem, and sought to find answers – retaining it integrity by an honest approach.

And the method; 

extensive communications with Nikki-Kate Heyes MBE, CEO of soundLINCS, and Shelley Spink, Executive Assistant have taken place



four representatives from Hub Lead Organisations (HLOs) have been interviewed by telephone



an on-line survey was undertaken via soundEMission, soundLINCS’ monthly e-news



detailed study of soundLINCS’ consultation, planning and communication strategies was undertaken

3|Page

Summary of Findings 1. soundLINCS went through an extensive and comprehensive process of consultation and planning in order to develop a workforce development offer to support music making opportunities for children in challenging circumstances

2. The package of workforce development was extensively promoted through soundLINCS own communications networks, and through Hub Lead Organisations and other partners and professional networks

3. The WFD provision was spread around the region in themed sets which met the objectives of the funding, facilitated access without travelling great distances, and allowed the space for local needs to be address 4. Despite all soundLINCS’ efforts, take up was low; for reasons of economics and priorities – both on the part of schools and organisations, and individual practitioners – in line with general trends 5. There are complexities in working with Hubs – HLOs are providers as well as commissioners and partnership leaders – they can be in competition with other Hub members, but are in a position of advantage over them. These relationships are not always clear, collaborative and based on equality

6. WFD initiatives aimed at children in challenging circumstances can be very specific, and the potential market for the WFD can be small. Initiatives need to be aligned to either a strategic project or initiative to develop both practice and provision, OR to a strong business case for new provision; preferably both.

7. Aligning WFD around strategic projects has the added potential of creating a committed community of practice – to new provision which meets particular needs, and to the sustenance and development of expertise to meet young people’s additional needs.

4|Page

soundLINCS and the National Foundation for Youth Music soundLINCS is a community music organisation operating across the East Midlands, an Arts Council England NPO (National Portfolio Organisation, which means it has a three year funding agreement) and has also been a Youth Music Action Zone (YMAZ, a National Foundation for Youth Music strategic initiative which brought funds into the company for ten years).

The National Foundation for Youth Music overhauled its funding programmes and strategies in 2011, and now operates a modular funding programme under two overarching ideas; Strengthening the Sector, and Learning and Participation.

Musical Inclusion is the strategic backbone of Strengthening the Sector; with complete geographic coverage in England, MInc grant-holders responsibilities are to develop new opportunities for children in challenging circumstances to benefit from participating in high quality music making; this is done through the provision of pilot projects involving children and young people, and through workforce development and networking which provide opportunities for practitioners to share experiences and build skills, knowledge and understanding which will help them to improve the quality of their work with young people. soundLINCS has always provided, supported and advocated workforce development for professionals in the region, using funding from many different sources. In early 2012, soundLINCS became the MInc grant-holder for most of the East Midlands region (Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland and Leicestershire, whilst Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Trust (NMPAT), hold the grant for Northamptonshire and Nottingham Music Service CIO holds the grant for Nottingham City). Naming the MInc programme for the East Midlands soundINCLUSION. soundLINCS also secured National Foundation for Youth Music funding for two standalone networking/ CPD programmes; East Midlands Early Years Network (EMEYN) and East Midlands Encouraging Talent and Potential (EMTaP) Network.

5|Page

Workforce Development By workforce development, I mean activity which is intended to enhance the skills, knowledge and understanding of people, so that they offer more and better opportunities and services to Children in Challenging Circumstances, which lead to better outcomes. That activity must be planned or structured with intent to develop skills, knowledge and understanding. Of course, great learning can be accidental or unintentional – but that isn’t under consideration here.

For our purposes, Workforce Development includes (but this isn’t exhaustive); 

Training Courses – face to face or on-line, one-off or long term (expert-led, formalised and with clear learning objectives)



Conferences (peer learning through formal presentation)



Skills sharing and facilitated communities of practice (peer learning through formal and informal demonstrations of practice, or collective inquiry)



Coaching, mentoring and shadowing (1:1 guided learning)



Reading, reflective practice and other solitary methods

Of course, what you need to learn influences how you need to learn it. You can read a book on how to ride a bicycle; it won’t help a great deal – if at all – in mastering balance and pedalling (skills), but it might give you the rules of the road which will keep you alive (knowledge), and which you will need to apply to cycle safely and successfully (understanding). All learning is like that – there are approaches which work, and approaches which don’t, depending on what needs to be learned. The learning strengths of the person doing the learning are just as important – some like to start by doing, then learn the theory, and some prefer to learn the theory before they start doing. Then there’s the learning situation which also has an effect – for children in challenging circumstances we need extra precautions in relation to their adult workforce; careful planning and preparation and practice are needed before trying new skills and ideas on children who may be in vulnerable situations, or who are a challenge to engage. They aren’t (or shouldn’t be) guinea pigs.

All of this serves to make Workforce Development an area of many possibilities.

The MInc workforce development strand, as with other National Foundation for Youth Music programmes, is tightly focussed. It is for adults who work with children in challenging circumstances, to improve their knowledge, skills and understanding so that they can offer better services to children and young people. soundLINCS, in common with other MInc grant-holders, also include adults who do not currently work with these young people, but wish to. It does not matter whether the adults are professional or volunteers for WFD purposes. The National Foundation for Youth Music was explicit in saying that WFD activities should not only be targeted at the

6|Page

grant-holders own employees or sub-contractors and partners, but should have open access elements to the wider community of practitioners.

The EMTaP and EMEYN networking programmes are not bound so tightly by the children in challenging circumstances focus, but nonetheless reaching such children is a core part of the programme.

Most MInc grant holders (including soundLINCS) want to reach as many people as they can, effectively and efficiently, in order to widen the pool of skilled practitioners who can work well with and for young people. This tends to lead provision towards CPD options which can be readily demonstrated as relatively good value for money; this is not a rule or requirement by any means, but an influencing factor. Any learning which is collective – where the time and expertise of a trainer or facilitator is shared by a group of learners – costs less per hour per learner than does 1:1 contact (I’m aware that this is leaving quality to one side – this point is about economics).

However, there’s an opposing cost position to the cost to the CPD provider; here are a few comparisons (for the sake of simplicity, management and infrastructure costs are ignored, and only direct costs are counted) 

For a one day training course the provider usually pays for the trainer, the venue, the refreshments, and the publicity costs. The attender pays for their travel, a day of their time (either loss of earnings or backfill), their travel expenses and travel time.



For a one-day webinar (presuming for a moment anyone would do such a thing), the provider’s costs are increased by the web provision and additional staffing required (technical support and running the chat system). The attender’s costs are reduced (travel expenses and travel time are not incurred)



A twilight session will save some trainer, venue and refreshment fees (though not as much as 50%) though the publicity cost may remain the same. The attender (particularly if working school hours) saves on the backfill / loss of earnings cost, but their travel costs and time remain the same as for a full day



A 1:1 coaching session for an hour might not incur much in the way of venue, refreshment or publicity fees for the provider, though only one person benefits from the trainer’s expertise. The attender only gives one hour of time (plus travel costs). From the point of view of the absolute cost of the activity, this is probably the least expensive option – but only one person at a time benefits; per capita, it is probably the most expensive to the provider, but is economical to the participant in terms of time, and is specific to that individual’s need.

So why does this matter? It matters because of the way people behave when their resources are reduced, or they have a heightened sense of how precious their resources are. It leads people to find ways to get better value for their money and time – without taking into account the money and time constraints of others.

For the training provider to get best value for their money, the ‘one day training course’ option above would be their first choice. For the attender, the webinar is a much better 7|Page

option as it saves on travel costs and time. Which means that in times of financial and resource constraints, providers and potential attenders may be going in opposite directions in their search for good value for money.

For these reasons the backbone of provision on offer tends to be open-access training and networking opportunities. But it may be that potential participants don’t view that offer as the best value option.

8|Page

What has changed? The External Environment In community music education, and indeed in the whole music education field, there has been upheaval over the last three years. Major changes include; Sing Up; an initiative of the (then) Labour Government beginning in 2008, the Sing Up programme spent £10M each year for four years on a comprehensive programme to re-invigorate singing in primary schools. The principal focus of the programme was to give teachers and other professionals the skills and tools they needed in order to lead and develop singing in and out of the classroom. A national network of ‘Area Leaders’ organised workforce development programmes and encouraged every single school with primary-aged children to join in. Thousands of workshops, training days, webinars and good practice guides were enthusiastically consumed, with many parts of England getting to close to 100% membership of Sing Up. It was all free. In 2012 the (new) Coalition Government granted Sing Up a one-off grant of £4M for one year, whilst the programme moved to a membership-based, paid for model. Although training opportunities were included in the membership fee, take up of training places across England fell substantially, with many workshops populated by a handful of participants, or cancelled. It was never entirely clear why this happened, though Sing Up may have done their own research which may contain valuable findings.

Youth Music’s Strategic Review; the re-focused strategy of the National Foundation for Youth Music aims primarily on Children in Challenging Circumstances, which can be outlined under four broad headings of risk1. The categories are not mutually exclusive and are frequently found in combination;

1



Economic Challenge – children whose family wealth or income restricts or prevents their participation in music-making, because it is unaffordable. This is assessed using Deprivation Indices for an area (not by individual or family assessment) and participation rates in existing provision



Life Condition Challenge – children with a condition which makes their participation in music-making more expensive or complex, such as a disability.

This generally assessed by services used (Special School attendance or additional support in mainstream for example)



Life Circumstance Challenge – children who are living in situations which makes their participation in music making more expensive or complex, such as Looked After Children, or Young Carers, or living in rural isolation. This is generally assessed by services used and participation rates in existing provision.



Behavioural Challenge – children whose own behaviour means they need additional support or specialist services in order to be able to participate in

These broad categories were identified by Phil Mullen, a member of the Musical Inclusion Evaluation team.

9|Page

music-making, such as Young Offenders, or young people at risk of exclusion.

Again, this is generally assessed by services used. 

Review and change to funding of Local Authority Music Services; this review re-aligned funding allocated to Music Services to a per capita basis, and over a four year transition will see all services funded equally based on the population they serve. At the same time, the total allocation is being reduced in cash by around 30% and Music Services are now ‘Hub Lead Organisations’.

Hubs (as originally outlined in Music Manifesto No 2) are localised partnerships co-ordinating their services and sharing resources, to ensure that children and young people get the music education they want and need. Hubs have a clear strategy set out for them of Core and Extension roles, which are summarised as;

Core First Access: Ensure that every child aged 5-18 has the opportunity to learn a musical instrument through whole-class ensemble teaching programmes for ideally a year (but for a minimum of a term).   

Ensembles: Provide opportunities to play in ensembles and to perform from an early stage.

Progression Routes: Ensure that clear progression routes are available and affordable to all young people.

Singing: Develop a singing strategy to ensure that every pupil sings regularly and that choirs and other vocal ensembles are available in the area.

Extension

  

Continuing Professional Development: Offer CPD to school staff, particularly in supporting schools to deliver music in the curriculum.

Instruments: Provide an instrument loan service, with discounts or free provision for those on low incomes.

Inspirational Experiences: Provide access to large scale and / or high quality music experiences for pupils, working with professional musicians and / or venues.

Hub Lead Organisations are expected to co-ordinate local provision, deliver more, more relevant and different services with less funding, by drawing in the activities of other organisations. The long-term aim is for co-ordinated provision across the hub membership, without overlaps or gaps.

General austerity in the public sector affects most public services, and has had a particularly pronounced impact on those services provided by Local Authorities. There 10 | P a g e

have been significant cuts to services, with non-statutory provision particularly hard hit, including Children and Young People’s services; not only in terms of what a Local Authority may provide, but also in terms of what it will fund or commission. There has been a general sense of ‘less work’ being available for community musicians (and others in similar fields), with established professionals with many years of experience and expertise finding it harder to make a living.

School funding and structural re-organisation has led to the creation of academies (and academy chains), where schools are no longer accountable to a Local Authority, and there are no automatic centralised services provided by the authority which the schools must use. Instead, the entire budget for the school is in the hands of the school.

The new Education Minister – Michael Gove – quickly put in place a raft of policies designed to ‘re-focus’ education on core subjects of literacy, numeracy, and scientific knowledge, and Ofsted placed new emphasis on these core subjects and changed their classification system so that ‘satisfactory’ grading became ‘requires improvement’. This – naturally enough – influenced the behaviour and priorities of schools almost immediately.

Some of these changes co-incided exactly; the National Foundation for Youth Music changed its programmes of funding at the same time as the DfE changed the funding system for Music Services and sought the establishment of Music Education Hubs.

Although organisations working in the sector were required to consult and work in partnership in order to develop their ideas, bids and business plans, in reality there were factors which worked against openness and co-operation. They shouldn’t be overplayed, and severity varied from place to place, but they made co-operative and joint planning difficult.

It was widely thought at the time that the DfE did not wish to move from funding 122 Music Services to funding 122 Hub Lead Organisations, led by Music Services. For the most part, Music Services recognised this as a danger to them and each quickly announced that they would be the bidder for their area – and invited everyone to support their bid. The need for bids to demonstrate partnerships quickly posed a dilemma for any other organisation wishing to bid – they would have to declare their hand in order to secure the partnership support, and would be publicly challenging the Local Authority (in almost all cases).

The new funding streams from the National Foundation for Youth Music - and Musical Inclusion in particular – posed the same dilemma of partnership, ‘hostile’ bids from organisations previously not funded by NFYM. Enthusiasts for change as wholesale as this borrow the phrase ‘creative destruction’ inappropriately. True creative destruction is (for example) when the invention of word processing leads to the death of the typewriter, or perhaps when on-line shopping

11 | P a g e

leads to the transformation of local high streets. It is the new creativity which forces or creates the change – NOT that change is forced by the destruction of the old.

Change and upheaval such as those listed above altered the environment for CPD and networking. Any one of those changes outlined above may have been enough to change the way organisations and practitioners engaged in workforce development; collectively they were unpredictable in terms of outcome and impact.

When there is less time, fewer resources and reduced funding, the reductions are not applied evenly across a full set of services or provision; essentials have to be maintained, sometimes meaning that desirables such as WFD are often disproportionately reduced (we can, and do, argue powerfully that WFD is essential which is true – it is not AS essential as some other provision) Additionally, cuts going different ways (from different departments or services) can land in the same place, creating a larger problem – again – than anticipated. If one funder reduces their support, activities can often continue on a reduced scale – if two or more do (often without knowing what others are doing), the impact is much greater and can be very serious.

So the change is wholesale and many faceted – and in the face of this, individuals and organisations primary concern (naturally) is their own continued existence; in a world of fewer resources, that means more competition.

Many Music Services (now Hub Lead Organisations) follow the educational INSET model, with five compulsory, paid days of in-service training for staff each year. As their role changes and develops, many are opening their in-house training days to music leaders from Hub member organisations. Practitioners and organisations who aspire to work within the hub, perhaps securing funding from it, may attend this provision principally for networking purposes, rather than the WFD. So the potential consequences of all this change are; 

That there may be fewer people working in the sector, as both posts and funding have been reduced, which reduces the size of the potential market for workforce development



People in the sector may be more cautious about spending their time and resources on workforce development. For freelancers there are three reasons o Committing time may mean having to turn down a work opportunity o investing money is a risk (the CPD may not be worth it), o when work is more scarce, the choice may be perceived as ‘spend on CPD now, or save for rainy days to put food on the table’ For those employed (for example in schools) the reasons might be o Reduced budgets for CPD o Reduced capacity for ‘time out’ from work for CPD, including reduced budgets available for backfilling jobs

12 | P a g e

o Senior Management teams across the board – in schools, local authorities and elsewhere – may take the view that CPD in music, particularly after four years of Sing Up, has had its share of focus. This might also be affected by DfE / Ofsted - other priorities are now the focus of attention. 

The National Foundation for Youth Music’s strategic re-focus around Children in Challenging Circumstances reduces the size of the potential market for CPD and networking opportunities; previously - through the MusicLeader strategic initiative – whilst there was an emphasis on Children in Challenging Circumstances and their needs, the national strategy for professional development was not so tightly focussed. There were more generalised offers which were open to practitioners across community music education



As Hub Lead Organisations change their role, some are changing their own CPD offer to develop their own staff for more than their traditional roles as ‘instrumental tutor’ or ‘first access teacher’ and moving towards being able to deliver on both core and extension roles. Hence they widen their own training offer, and open up CPD opportunities to partner organisations in their local area. Effectively there is more competition in the CPD and networking market

Although all organisations were (and are) required to consult and plan in order to develop their funding bids, as everyone was engaged in consultation and planning at the same time, perhaps the energy and commitment in contributing to others plans was simply not available; people and organisations were concentrating on their own survival. soundLINCS practitioner survey sought participation from the readership of soundEMission. The total response (it had a three week limit) was 41 people. The questions asked were; 1

How much training, networking or other professional development have you done in the last 12 months (10 or more days, 5-9 days, 1-4 days)

2

Was this more, less, or about the same as you did in the previous year?

3

Who provided the training; your employer, a school or local authority, an arts organisation, a young people’s organisation, other

4

Was your attendance voluntary, or required (for example, a teacher at an INSET day)

5

If you have a training plan, did you decide what training you required, or was this chosen by your employer

13 | P a g e

6

Were your choices influenced by; cost, travel distance, location, organiser of the event? How much the training cost?

7 8

How much of the training was specifically about music? Over 50%, 25-49%, less than 25% Was any of the training you attended specifically about the needs of Children in Challenging Circumstances (for example SEN, Looked After Children, Young Offenders) – over 50%, 25-49%, less than 25%

9

How much of your work is music-related – over 50%, 25-49%, less than 25%

10

How much of your work is with Children in Challenging Circumstances – over 50%, 25-49%, less than 25%

Responses as to how much training had been undertaken were evenly spread – about 25% for each category, which does mean that 25% of respondents had taken less than 1 day’s training in a 12 month period. More than 50% said this was the same amount of training as the previous year, with 20% each saying less, and the same more. An arts organisation was the most common provider, with local authority or school, or employer equalling that only when put together. Only five respondents attended only training they were required to, with a further ten attending some voluntarily and some compulsorily, leaving 26 who only attended training they had chosen for themselves. Cases where the employer had specified all the training to be taken were few, with more respondents attending a mixture of training they’d chosen themselves and training their employer had chosen for them – but the biggest group was those who had chosen all their own training. Where people talked about what influenced their choices, only two cited the organisation leading the training as a factor – however almost all cited cost and travelling distance as factors. More than 60% of respondents said that more than 50% of the training they’d done was specifically about music, but only 16 of respondents said that more than 25% of their training was about children in challenging circumstances. However only 16 said that more than 25% of their work was with children in challenging circumstances (there was a strong correlation – but not complete match – between those two groups of 16 people).

This was a small response from a large distribution group, and to read too much into the statistics would be unwise. It was a voluntary sample though – so it would be natural to expect that people who were enthusiastic and committed to training would be more likely to respond than those who were less so – for that reason alone it is interesting that the amount of training taken was low for a significant proportion. To some extent, the results confirm what we know – that price and location are barriers, but it is interesting that the organisation putting the training on does not seem to influence choices. This contradicts the idea that local organisations with local knowledge are needed in order for training to be taken up; indeed two of the four MEH 14 | P a g e

representatives thought that soundLINCS’ problem was that it was ‘not local’.

However, the MEH statements may also have been influenced by the complicating factor of their being competing providers as well as partners – Sainsburys don’t tell people to go and shop at Tesco because their fresh herbs are better. It is asking a lot of the HLO / Music Service that it recommends the provision or services of an organisation it is competing with.

An aside; Partnership working is a much-recommended system, from Government level downwards. There’s an implication that ‘partnership working’ will somehow save money – it rarely does; it can save an individual organisation money, as joint investment means one organisation doesn’t have to find a whole budget. But projects as a whole rarely, if ever, cost less. On the contrary, the time cost of building and sustaining a working partnership is considerable. Partnerships are a public and voluntary sector term – in the private sector a range of terms is used which more usefully define the nature of the relationship, from joint venture to full merger. We also use the word ‘partnership’ to describe a range of relationships which aren’t really partnerships at all. As Creative Partnerships “Creating Change through Partnership Working2” reader observed; “For a real partnership to exist, rather than a procurement model, there has to be a minimum of a process for collective decision making and devolving resource allocation. This usually means an effective committee structure and an ability to make decisions about budgets or the deployment of staff time.” And; “Partnerships fall into two distinct groups: 

ones that hold contracts



ones that don’t

To have the capacity to hold a contract there needs to be a legal entity to hold the contract and to be accountable. What happens in practice is that one member of the partnership takes on the responsibility for holding the contracts and working issues of accountability. There is a real danger here that the best laid plans of partnership working will unravel at this point and the lead partner in effect becomes the commissioning body.”

“Coalitions are not built because it is good, moral or nice to get everyone working together. The only reason to spend time and energy building a coalition is to amass the power necessary to do something you cannot do on your own. They (coalitions) sometimes suffer from unrealistic expectations, such as the notion that people who share a common cause will agree on everything. While a great deal of time is often spent figuring out how to manage internal relationships and leadership structures,

2

Sometimes when initiatives come to an end, the useful things they did are archived and forgotton about. This is one such.

15 | P a g e

rarely is much time spent figuring out how to manage relationships with external forces, such as the state.’

An open partnership asks two questions; 

What do we need to do?



Who is best placed to deliver it?

There are very few examples of partnerships in the sector which hold contracts; in almost all cases there is an individual ‘lead organisation’ (as in the case of Hubs) which is accountable to funders. It is hard to act in a spirit of true partnership when you’re the one who will be held to account. It is hard to share decision-making with others, and even harder to share out the resources for delivery when you need the money for your own organisation and staff. In the case of Hub formation, Hub Lead Organisations (almost all of which were Music Services) already had the staffing and resources and had been delivering a service for many years (not universally, and not to 100% of their constituency). They were not in a position to act in a true spirit of partnership as it would jeopardise their own financial stability. Indeed in most cases the HLO role came with a reduction in funding from previous years. They needed to increase their own income to compensate – not start offering delivery contracts to other organisations.

Hence there is a common theme among HLOs to style themselves as ‘the Hub’ – not as the HLO, nor as a lead partner in a collective of organisations engaged in local delivery, with a partnership committee which has powers over resources. And this can – at worst and with the least sense of partnership – lead a single organisation also to believe that they are the arbiter of quality and the decision maker with respect to all activity in their area.

The external environment is, therefore, not particularly conducive to building true partnerships – there are greater expectations, less money, and more competition.

Those factors work against the open and honest exchange of expertise and development of ideas necessary for bringing change into everyday practice. Further, it is not clear whether the ‘new’ systems will hold past March 2015 – this makes building partnerships (if that is what they are) at best a medium-term enterprise – there is no guarantee that the need for partnership will continue.

In the East Midlands the formation of ‘hubs’ followed the pattern in most of the rest of England; the Local Authority Music Service submitted a bid to become the HLO (Hub Lead Organisation) for its authority area. The region has a mix of local authority structures again, not unlike the rest of the nation. There are unitary authorities for Derby, Leicester and Nottingham and county boundary authorities which often completely envelop a city authority – and have district councils as an additional tier.

The Music Services for the region are; 

Derbyshire City and County Music Partnership

16 | P a g e

     

Leicestershire Schools Music Service Lincolnshire Schools Music Service Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Trust Nottingham Music Service Nottinghamshire Music Hub Rutland County Council Instrumental Tuition Service

North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire Councils also have Music Service provision, but for arts funding purposes these are deemed to be in Yorkshire & the Humber (a hangover from the 1974 Local Government re-organisation which created Humberside, of which they were a part). These two authorities look ‘in two directions’ and have relationships and partnerships north of the Humber, as well as in Lincolnshire)

17 | P a g e

Internal Environment; soundLINCS MInc grant-holders in general – and soundLINCS is no exception – have had to show the changes in practice and provision which demonstrate the change in strategic focus of NFYM’s work. A change in strategy has to be visible and demonstrable as a change in practice; it is not what you say, but what you do, which shows your direction of travel.

Whether the change was from being a YMAZ or MusicLeader host (and soundLINCS was fairly unusual in being both), a significant change in practice and direction is a challenge which needs confident and strong leadership and management skills.

In addition to the change in strategy and practice, soundLINCS also expanded its geographic coverage; as a YMAZ its area of operation was almost exclusively Lincolnshire County Area. soundLINCS became responsible for MusicLeader for the East Midlands region only two years before the reorganisation of funding, in 2010. This meant that it had some time – but less time than organisations elsewhere had – to develop working relationships across a region, and meant that it was doing two new things at the same time – making new partnerships and changing its own strategy.

The region itself is diverse – more or less from the edges of London to the remotest coasts in England. It has enormous cultural diversity, from Leicester where less than 50% of the population is white and more than 33% are Asian, to rural East Lindsey where 95% of the population is white (source; 2011 Census, National Statistics).

Whilst soundLINCS was able to take its excellent reputation in Lincolnshire with it, as it developed relationships in the rest of the region, it was at something of a disadvantage, and certainly open to accusation that it lacked local knowledge, or that it was a ‘newcomer’ to some areas.

To develop an appropriate range of WFD and networking activities to be offered across these three funded programmes, and one which met local needs, soundLINCS consulted widely during a six month planning and preparation period. The planning and consultation was extensively documented and included;  ‘Roadshow’ events across the region to generate interest and to consult on needs and interest – generating ideas about inspirational topics and speakers, timing, regularity and practical organisation of events and widely advertised and trailed to generate maximum attendance. The road show events took place between January and February 2013 at Northamptonshire Music & Performing Arts Trust, Northampton; The Phoenix, Leicester; The Old Library Theatre, Mansfield; and The Heyes Conference Centre, Alfreton, Derbyshire. An event scheduled in Linconshire was cancelled due to low bookings. 

Meetings with senior staff in Hub Lead Organisations (for the most part, the Heads of Music Services) to identify local needs and priorities, consider draft plans, gain agreement and make practical arrangements. This was supplemented by attendance at Hub Partnership meetings, where soundLINCS staff could consult more widely across hub partnerships, and also learn of other WFD plans. The only exception to this was Rutland which was undergoing re-structure during the consultation period

18 | P a g e



Feedback forms and questionnaires submitted by individual music leaders



Regular communication with HLOs and other providers around the region, checking for updates and keeping people informed of what was planned



Presenting outline plans to Hub Lead Organisations for comment, and to check that activities did not cut across the CPD plans of other Hub members. These plans identified priority themes and content for each area, based on initial consultations



Establishing a monthly e-newsletter, soundEMission which quickly built up 1800 subscribers as the basis of publicity for soundLINCS’ activities

None of the consultations were one-way. soundLINCS staff also collected information on planned workforce development activities by other providers – including Hub Lead Organisations and other hub partners. In total, 66 visits were made around the region for the purposes of consultation, planning and promotion. soundLINCS re-vamped its communication strategy through the development of soundEMission and building up the distribution list to 1800 e-mail addresses. The enews is short and built on a ‘click-through’ principle, which can be tracked through analytics to show how many people are actively responding, in addition to tracking how many people open or read it. For example, in September; 

soundEMission: 1828 ebulletins – 389 opens – 16 clicks: 5 to Music in the Frameworks & 11 to soundPROFOUND



soundEMission Extra: 1825 ebulletins – 346 opens – 38 clicks: 5 to Music in the Frameworks & 33 to soundPROFOUND

The opening rate at 20% is around the commonly cited average, so the bulletin was as effective as others in the sector. It can be useful however, to keep checking back on old issues –people keep, open and click through on links for months after initial publication. soundEMission’s purpose is much wider than promoting workforce development, and is one of soundLINCS’ principal communications and marketing tools.

By September 2012, detailed and agreed delivery plans were put in place.

Marketing activities – supplementary to the soundEMission – were localised, with regular distribution through HLOs for them to distribute more widely. But Shelley Spink also contacted many other networks; 

Early Years practitioners (locally, regionally and nationally)



Freelance practitioners (including through Sound Sense)



To individual contacts who knew and supported soundLINCS, to pass on



To specific sub-groups – Special Schools, SEND Teachers, Nurseries, arts organisations with a community / educational focus

19 | P a g e



To local cultural and enterprise information networks



Media contacts, and extensive use of social media.

So the issue was not that people didn’t have information – it is possible though that the same people were getting information several times over. Two or three times and this is reinforcement – but as we all know, five or six begins to annoy. It is possible that some judicious filtering could prevent people receiving the same information too many times in future.

20 | P a g e

Considering the offer – and what might be in future The offer was varied3; ranging from two or three hour localised networking and practice sharing sessions to one day conferences, and around 50 events in total. That might sound like too many – but spread over such an extensive area (eg it is 90 miles from Northampton to Lincoln) it is a reasonable number to ensure that no-one is denied access on the grounds of distance, which the survey showed was – alongside cost – cited as the most important consideration in making choices. All the events were clearly identified as to theme and content and were stranded according to the programme – soundINCLUSION, EMEYN or EMTaP. Many of the sessions were the same – repeated in different locations around the region. Depending on your point of view this is either ensuring relatively easy access across a wide geographical area, or not being sufficiently local. It is an efficient and consistent way of operating networks, and it does not mean that the sessions were the same in different parts of the region; good WFD led by skilled facilitators and trainers is adaptable ‘in the moment’ – reflective practice in its original and truest sense – to meet the needs and aspirations of participants. The offer of consistently themed and titled, expertly facilitated sessions in different parts of the region was therefore both efficient in terms of planning, preparation and meeting the objectives of the funding, and local in that activities would be responsive to participants concerns.

Looking at the list as a whole, one might be tempted into thinking that there was too much on offer; if anyone were to look at the entire offer it would be off-putting, and it would take quite a while to sort out which offers in which places were suitable for you.

However, the whole point of soundLINCS’ approach was to tie into local needs and priorities and to work with HLOs so that the offer felt – and was – localised. That’s a marketing consideration – not creating barriers of distance and travel where you can avoid it; but it is also a networking consideration – soundLINCS wanted (and the sector needs) to create supportive communities of practice. And although we are in the digital age and these things can be done at a distance, face to face contact and localism is rewarding and valued by most practitioners.

So whilst there were many events if one looked at the region as a whole, if you – say – were looking for some WFD relevant to working with young people with English as an additional language in Nottinghamshire - there was only one.

In general, the WFD on offer was very precise; and it may be that this is where the reconsideration needs to be. Musical Inclusion’s targets (above) are clear, and soundLINCS were correct in identifying that the needs of children in challenging circumstances can be very precise, so the skills which practitioners needs are equally precise. For example, a child learning an instrument who is Deaf has very different needs to a child who has a visual impairment – WFD which tried to cover both might

3

See Appendix 1

21 | P a g e

not be useful. However, the number of people who actually need that WFD is also (probably) very small.

Trying to work locally at the same time as trying to meet very specific WFD needs is difficult, unless there is a substantial local target market. In the case of children in challenging circumstances, local, specific demand may not exist in sufficient quantity to make WFD offers viable. As one HLO interviewee put it ‘they aren’t our core business’. That sounds harsh, particularly to people and organisations for whom children and young people in challenging circumstances are their main business, and a reflection of personal and organisational values. However, for the HLOs it is a perfectly valid economic argument, and they have businesses to run. The Music Education Grant is, for many HLOs, a small proportion of their income (as low as around 20%) with the remainder generated mainly from traded services – parents paying for instrumental lessons and similar activities. The demand for instrumental lessons from Deaf children and young people within one Hub area may be very small and just as importantly, if no-one has the skills to teach them and the service is not offered, there is unlikely to be any demand. And the HLO needs a business case for new business, especially in the face of reductions in core funding, as does an individual teacher or practitioner – if I learn these new skills, will it mean more, or better work for me?

So, whilst the HLOs may wish to develop their staff in order to be able to offer such services, unless the WFD is accompanied by a localised development strategy to offer, market, recruit and support such a service, which might include; encouraging individual tutors to take up the learning opportunity, offering taster sessions or subsidising initial lessons, the WFD may in any case prove unfruitful. There’s little point in learning skills you can’t put into practice, and they dissipate quickly.

22 | P a g e

Ways Forward This is a difficult and unpredictable climate to be working in; at times like these, when even the mainstream is significantly challenged, it is hard to keep ensuring that those who have less opportunity don’t lose out disproportionately. Whilst the nation’s economy is showing some small signs of recovery, there is no indication that public services in general will see any lessening of the severe pruning they’ve met with over the last few years, nor that government spending will increase; quite the reverse. So it is unwise to work on the basis that ‘it will come right’ again.

In that context – and taking everything else into account, it seems that the conclusion is this; WorkForce Development should be as closely aligned as possible with strategic projects and other activities which are intended to bring about improvements in music education for children in challenging circumstances.

Workforce Development priorities need a strong business case as well as a social one, in order for there to be enthusiastic take up. We would all agree that Deaf young people should have the opportunity to learn to play an instrument if they want to – but an individual music practitioner or teacher – most likely a specialist on one family of instruments or one single instrument - will put the time and effort in to learn how to do it when they know it will result in paid work. Similarly a HLO will invest time and money in staff development if it helps their social objectives, their business objectives and – ideally – both.

Which means (to continue an example used earlier) that Instrumental Tuition for Deaf Young People as a WFD activity should be organised where it is aligned with a project – either pilot or a strategic change – to offer and grow such a service in a particular place. That isn’t to say that only people involved in the project should be able to participate in the WFD; but that the people involved in the project will form a core team of practitioners for the WFD, which can be supplemented through wider recruitment.

This may also help to form communities of practice.

To align WFD around strategy – whether the development of singing skills among the workers in a cluster of children’s centres, or developing a group of new young music producers to develop teaching skills means that those skills will be put into practice (within the project). That’s not for a moment to say that the strategy development should be in the hands of others and that soundLINCS should follow where others lead; it is an important strategic role for the Minc grant-holder to lead on strategy in areas of work in which HLOs have traditionally not addressed, and which they don’t perhaps regard as ‘core business’ – for whatever reason.

23 | P a g e

APPENDIX 1 – Planned Activity

EMEYN – East Midlands Early Years Network (event duration varied between 2 - 3hrs)

1. Music Making Meeting New EYFS - Investigate how music making activities and programmes can meet the new EYFS standards.

Location:

Nottinghamshire

Date:

24th July 2013 10th October 2013

Leicester-shire

2. Creating Opportunities in Early Years Music – How do we create opportunities in Early Years Music?

Location:

Leicester-shire

Date:

19th February 2014

3. Exploring the New Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) - Review of the new EYFS Location:

Lincolnshire

Date:

22nd January 2014

4. Importance of Music in Early Years - Investigate the importance of music in Early Years settings.

Location:

Rutland

Date:

8th August 2013

Lincolnshire

17th April 2014

Nottinghamshire

23nd October 2013

5. Sharing Best Practice - Share ideas, knowledge, and resources with peers and colleagues.

Location:

Rutland

Date:

28th May 2014

6. Encouraging Creative Music in Early Years - How can creativity be encouraged in Early Years Music?

Location:

Northants

Date:

31st July 2013

7. Musical Inclusion in Early Years - Investigate the issue of musical inclusion in Early Years settings

24 | P a g e

Location:

Northants

Date:

24th September 2014

Date:

10 September 2013

8. Developing Your Questioning Skills Location:

Derbyshire

9. The Music Toolbox – Develop skills and repertoire to meet Early Years music making Location:

Derbyshire

Date:

17th July 2014

10 Encouraging Language Development through singing - How can language development be encouraged through singing? Learn new skills and activities to develop practice.

Location:

Leicester-shire

Date:

9th July 2013 22nd January 2014

Nottinghamshire

11. Music Tech and Early Years – A look at incorporating music technology to Early Years music making Location:

Northants

Date:

12th February 2014

Rutland

18th March 2014

Leicester-shire

24th April 2014

12. Adapting New Skills to meet the new Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) – How can you adapt your skill set to meet the new EYFS? Review your own practice and knowledge.

Location:

Lincolnshire

Date:

29th July 2013 16th May 2013

Rutland

13. Encouraging Creative Music Making in Early Years - How can creativity be encouraged in Early Years? Share ideas and knowledge with peers and colleagues to develop your practice.

Location:

Lincolnshire

Date:

9th July 2014

14. Supporting English as an additional language (EAL) in Early Years - How can EAL children be best supported and encouraged in music making?

25 | P a g e

Location:

Nottinghamshire

Date:

30th July 2014 19th May 2014

Northants

15. The place of Music in the Revised EYFS. Exploring professional & personal attributes of good leaders. Evaluating impact. Current projects / YM funding Exploring professional & personal attributes of good leaders. Evaluating impact. Current projects / YM funding Location:

Derbyshire

Date:

4th December 2013 28th January 2014

Derbyshire

EMTAP – East Midlands Talent And Potential

1. Can you spot potential? - Review your own ideas of talent and potential and share ideas and knowledge with peers and colleagues.

Location:

Leicester-shire

Date:

10th July 2013 25th September 2013

Lincolnshire

2. Promoting Folk Music - A look at folk music and promoting to young people and encouraging young folk musicians. Identify progression routes.

Location:

Nottinghamshire

Date:

20th June 2013

3. Talent and Potential in CCC settings - Encouraging talent and potential in CCC settings and identifying progression routes.

Location:

Rutland

Date:

10th December 2013

4. How to Spot Talent - Identifying talent and potential in young people – top tips Location:

Northants Derby

26 | P a g e

Date:

20th March 2013 12th March 2014

soundINCLUSION – Children in Challenging Circumstances (whole day training sessions) 1. Urban Music and Children in Challenging Circumstances – Developing skills and repertoire in urban music to work with Children in Challenging Circumstances Location: Leicester-shire Date: 6th January 2014 Nottinghamshire

20th March 2014

2. Singing in Special Needs Settings - Exploring ways to break down disabling barriers to music through innovative approaches to learning, including use of Makaton in singing activities.

Location: Leicester-shire Date: 17th September 2013 Lincolnshire

3rd October 2013

Nottinghamshire

26th June 2013

Rutland

8th January 2014

3. EAL / Minority / Migrant – Developing Skills to meet Settings Needs - Developing sessions for children and young people who use English as an additional language and / who are from migrant / minority families and communities. Developing an understanding of these specific settings and looking at how to develop skills sets to work within settings.

Location: Lincolnshire Date: 5th September 2013 Nottinghamshire

8th July 2013

4. Formal / Non Formal Practitioners in CCC Working Together - Investigate the differences in approaches and understanding. Consider: What are the connections? How can collaborative working be encouraged?

Location: Rutland Date: 28th November 2013

5. Music Making with Juvenile and Young Offenders - Exploring the benefits of creating music with young offenders, both within the community and the secure estate.

Location: Lincolnshire Date: 6th March 2013

6. Behaviour Management in CCC - Developing skills, knowledge and experience in order to widen an understanding of behaviour management. Exploring the issues and barriers; practical aspects of behaviour management: health and safety issues, risk assessment and achieving key objectives.

Location: Rutland Date: 20th February 2014

27 | P a g e

7. Music Making with Young Carers - Understanding the practical issues and barriers young carers deal with and develop musical activities to encourage and develop young carers.

Location: Leicester-shire Date: 21st January 2014

8. Motivating NEET Young People through Music - Encouraging NEET young People through music making. Develop skills and musical repertoire to work in NEET settings and examine practical issues such as motivation and development of young people.

Location: Nottinghamshire Date: 12th November 2013 Leicester-shire

11st December 2013

Lincolnshire

7th January 2014

9. Singing in SEN settings – Exploring ways to break down disabling barriers to music through innovative approaches to learning, including the use of Makaton in singing activities.

Location:

Lincolnshire

Date:

12th September 2013

Nottinghamshire

15th January 2014

Leicestershire

17th September 2013

10. Monitoring Music Development with EAL - Develop skills and knowledge to look at monitoring musical progress of EAL / Minority children and young people and the impact on language development.

Location: Leicestershire 19th November 2013

11. Exploring First Language in Music Making - How to explore cultures and backgrounds of Minority / EAL children and encourage and incorporate the use of first language in music making.

Location: Rutland Date: 23rd July 2013 Lincolnshire

13th November 2013

12. Understanding Looked After Children - Develop an understanding of the systems that surround LAC and discuss strategies / activities that could counter / support these systems in the delivery of music activities, workshops and projects.

Location: Lincolnshire Date: 18th February 2014

13. SEN and New Technology - Investigate specific programmes and software which is currently used in music sessions when working in SEN settings: e.g SoundBEAM, MIDI Creator and SmartNav, and assistive software such as The Grid 2 Location: Rutland Date: 16th October 2013

28 | P a g e

Lincolnshire

16th July 2013

Nottinghamshire

3rd February 2014

Leicester-shire

10th January 2014

14. Working in CCC settings – suitable for practitioners wishing to develop their practice to work with vulnerable young people, and developing confidence in challenging group work settings – incorporating developing skills, knowledge and experience in order to widen an understanding of behaviour management.

Location: Nottinghamshire Date: 1st October 2013 Rutland

24th April 2013

Leicester-shire

19th December 2013

15. Musical Toolbox in CCC – Develop skills and repertoire which can be used and adapted to suit needs of differing CCC settings.

Location: Rutland Date: 4th September 2013

16. Early Years Music Making in CCC - Look at how music making activities can be delivered in early years settings successfully.

Location: Rutland Date: 5th June 2013

17. CLADAC Working with Arts Delivery for Young People - understanding the neurological development of young people and how to use this to influence their engagement, behaviour and social and emotional wellbeing.

Location: Nottinghamshire Date: 23rd January 2014

29 | P a g e

Glossary of acronyms and projects CPD

Continuous Professional Development

HLO’s

Hub Lead Officers

MEH

Music Education Hub

NMPAT

Northamptonshire Music & Performing Arts Trust

NPO

National Portfolio Organisation

SEND

Special Educational Needs and Disability

WFD

Workforce Development

YMAZ

Youth Music Action Zone

EMEYN

East Midlands Early Years Network – soundLINCS’ Networks Programme funded by the National Foundation for Youth Music. The aim of the programme is to improve and increase the musical offer to Early Years children in the East Midlands through targeted networks and online support for Early Years Professionals and Early Years Music Leaders.

EMTaP

East Midlands Talent and Potential Network – soundLINCS’ Networks Programme funded by the National Foundation for Youth Music. The aim of the programme is to share current knowledge and best practice of encouraging talent, potential and progression routes for children and young people in the East Midlands. It targets all those delivering music making to children and young people and will provide general support as well as action research for minority genres and contexts.

MInc

Musicial Inclusion – a nationwide programme funded by the National Foundation for Youth Music. The aim of the programme is to ensure opportunities exist for children and young people in challenging circumstances to access and progress through high quality music-making across England.

soundINCLUSION

soundLINCS’ Musical Inclusion Programme that aims to bring together coherent and strategic development opportunities which capitalise on the new musical prospects within the 4 counties of Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland through the Arts Council England Bridging Organisation, National Plan for Music Education and Music Education Hubs.

30 | P a g e

Connectivity between local organisations will be retained, valued and developed to enhance the offer and opportunities for children and young people.

MusicLeader

This was a previous national programme and a Youth Music initiative. There was a MusicLeader programme in every region of England providing support services for anyone working with children and young people through music – either through 1-2-1 support and guidance; training and networking opportunities; and online information and resources.

soundEMission

soundLINCS’ free e-information service monthly bulletin providing information and links to relevant services, work, development and funding opportunities and a host of other items of interest for people involved in music development and education in the East Midlands.

Music in the Frameworks East Midlands Early Years Programme -Early Years Regional Conference soundPROFOUND

31 | P a g e

soundINCLUSION East Midlands Programme - Regional Children in Challenging Circumstances Conference

soundINCLUSION is funded and supported by :-

EMTaP & EMEYN is funded and supported by all the above plus:-

soundHOUSE 18 St Martin’s Lane Lincoln LN2 1HY Tel: 01522 510073 Fax: 01522 510076 Email: info@soundlincs.org Website: www.soundlincs.org www.facebook.com/soundlincs Twitter: @soundlincs

32 | P a g e