Reflections on the Curriculum Review and the MEC Away Day

The Curriculum Review has sparked wide-ranging debate across the music education community, raising important questions about what — and who — our curriculum is truly for. In this blog, MEC Trustee Elect Chris Ricketts shares his reflections on the review alongside insights from his first MEC Away Day. Drawing on sector conversations and personal experience, he explores the opportunities, risks and tensions within the current proposals, and why rethinking “rigour” and broadening what counts as music is essential for the young people we serve.

Chris Ricketts, Bohunt Education Trust, Doctoral Candidate and MEC Trustee Elect

The recent curriculum review has indeed engaged a wealth of conversation across the music education sector. The ‘Big Meet’ organised by Music Mark, ISM and MTA is a prime example of the impact and shift that this review could have on music education.  As someone deeply embedded in the profession, I approach this moment with an ambition: to ensure that music education is not just included, but reimagined and transformed for the students and musicians of today.

The Curriculum Review: Risks, Opportunities and Questions

The review signals a definite commitment to music with the scrapping of EBacc and the call to rethink Progress-8. These are very much welcomed. However, when examining the finer details of the report, there is a risk of replicating historical patterns and values in music that may not reflect or represent today's musicians. 

The new review emphasises “rigour” and “structure”; we must ask the critical questions: whose rigour? Whose musical practices are being valued? My concern is that rigour can become a cover for conformity. If the curriculum emphasises measurement, auditing, and narrow definitions of musical achievement, we risk reinforcing existing musical hierarchies and further excluding many students who are musical in “other” ways.

“Access” without meaningful cultural, relational, and creative shifts risks continuing to narrow music and further excluding people.

Meaningful participation matters, and ensuring more young people engage with music is critical. Still, we must ensure that they are valued as musicians and cultural agents, not just subjected to a prescribed musical offer. If the curriculum remains optional and peripheral, rather than progressive, we risk adding to its current exclusivity.

One theme that repeatedly surfaces across the sector is the perceived “lack of rigour” at Key Stage 3. This narrative troubles me, not because KS3 should not be challenging or musically ambitious, but because I feel it frames the problem in the wrong direction. The suggestions that KS3 lacks rigour place the responsibility on the teachers and students rather than the structure and paradigm of the GCSE itself. Perhaps for those arriving in Year 9 or 10, feeling that GCSE is inaccessible is not the problem, but instead how we currently frame musical “readiness” at GCSE. In short, the GCSE needs to reflect the musical worlds that students already inhabit. Expanding the definition of rigour at GCSE to recognise multiple ways of being musical would make the qualification more accessible and strengthen KS3 provision by removing the pressure to teach towards the current narrow exam model.

This is a massive opportunity for the sector to broaden what counts musically and create a modern, musically relevant curriculum for our students.

Key Takeaways from the Curriculum Review Document

When the Curriculum Review Final Report was released, I needed to interrogate where music was mentioned and the key things that stood out in the document. My observations  can be viewed here, but below are some of my key takeaways:

Acknowledgement of inequity is welcome, but solutions still feel narrow.

The Final Report recognises that participation in GCSE and A-level music is in decline and that access to music education remains unequal. However, the proposed remedies are built on traditional models of rigour, standardisation and strengthening subject knowledge. These risk missing the broader cultural and creative barriers that students face.

Music is framed as knowledge-first rather than experience-first.

The underlying assumptions still privilege a particular canon and pathway into musicianship. This reinforces the gap between KS3 and KS4 that so many have highlighted. If excellence is continued to be defined narrowly, many young musicians will never feel “prepared” enough to participate.

Creativity is referenced but not fully acknowledged.

The review emphasises creativity's importance, but the mechanisms it proposes (knowledge sequencing, assessment structure, and increased expectations) suggest that creativity is still tightly controlled. Actual creative processes for composition, experimentation, informal learning and genre diversity need more than just lip service.

Missed opportunity to centre students' lived musical identities.

The most transformative music education begins with who students are, not just what they need to know. Music is deeply personal to many, and this needs to be reflected in the curriculum review. Without cultural relevance in the document, the curriculum risks reinforcing current paradigms rather than opening music up to many.

The most significant shift is needed at GCSE, not KS3.

The document repeatedly frames KS3 as a “rigour gap”, implying that teachers must do more to prepare students for the current GCSE. The problem is not a deficit in KS3; it is the narrowness of the KS3 model. If GCSE and KS3 continue to be based on notation, classical forms and fixed assessment pathways, then the qualification will remain inaccessible to a majority of musicians.

Rebalancing the curriculum means shifting expectations upwards, towards a GCSE that recognises, represents, and values many different ways of being musical, including producers, rappers, singer-songwriters, folk musicians, DJs, improvisers, and community musicians. If the goalposts stay where they are, widening participation will always feel like pushing against a locked door.

The MEC Away Day: Community & Purpose

For many years, whilst studying and being part of a small musical department, I have felt quite alone in my views surrounding the curriculum. Holding the belief that music education should be culturally expansive and centred on student agency can sometimes feel out of touch with the dominant narrative of tradition. I recently took part in my first away day for as a newly elected Trustee of MEC. The day spent discussing these issues with the rest of the MEC Trustees has shifted that feeling, and for me, it was truly an eye-opening and transformative experience.

In the room, surrounded by colleagues from all areas of the sectors, hubs, universities, schools and national organisations. I realised that the ideas I had been battling in relative isolation were not niche; they were shared and echoed, and it was inspiring to have deep conversations about the sector on the day. Key themes included concerns about cultural relevance, equity of access, narrow pathways, and pressures on those in the industry.

I was reminded that I am not alone in my thinking: I am part of a movement of educators committed to building music education that honours and celebrates the full diversity of young people's musical identities. It felt like I was stepping into a deeper conversation. MEC has provided one of the few spaces where honest, critical and forward-looking conversations were welcomed and valued.

I am proud that I will be serving as a Trustee in an organisation of like-minded people who believe music is for everyone, regardless of background or experience.

Ricketts Report (2025) - Curriculum Review