Music and Dance Schools: Affordable Access

Question for Short Debate

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are committed to maintaining affordable access to specialist music and dance schools for talented children of all social backgrounds.

My Lords, just before the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, starts, I emphasise that the timings on this debate are very tight. Most speakers have two minutes, so can noble Lords please stick within that, so that everybody can be heard and the Minister can have adequate time to respond.

My Lords, my purpose in raising this question is to highlight the vital role of MDS, the music and dance scheme, which provides means-tested support to enable exceptionally talented young children from all backgrounds to attend specialist music and dance schools. I should draw attention to my interest as governor of the Yehudi Menuhin School and the Royal Academy of Music, both of which have students who participate in this scheme.

There are a handful of specialist music and dance schools in the UK that take exceptionally talented and highly committed youngsters and provide them with the advanced tuition they need to achieve their potential. The children who attend are at the very top of their peer group, and most go on to make careers as acknowledged leaders in the music and dance professions. To fulfil their mission, these schools aim to take the highest-potential children regardless of their social background and financial means. The intense specialist education that these schools provide, mostly within a boarding environment, is expensive and beyond the means of all but a few parents. The boarding fees at the Menuhin school, for example, are almost £50,000 a year—and that does not cover the full cost. Musical talent is not restricted to wealthy families, and the music and dance scheme provides the financial support that is essential to enable talented children from any background to attend. Therefore, while these schools are classed as independent schools, they are not the preserve of rich, privileged kids.

At the Menuhin school, for example, only a handful—under 10%—pay the full fees, and they have to earn their place on ability just like every other pupil. The other 90% can benefit from this special environment only because of the financial support they receive from MDS, together with the bursaries funded by charitable donations. Without MDS funding, some of these schools would no longer be financially viable. Unlike many private schools, with such a limited number of full-fee payers, they cannot simply expand the number of pupils paying full fees and raise enough money to subsidise scholarships to those from poor families. Further, any lowering of standards to accept wealthy children who do not have the talent or commitment to reach the top of their profession would not be fair to those children, putting them in an environment where they were unlikely to succeed. Nor is it realistic to make up any shortfall through more charitable donations. Every one of these schools is already struggling to raise enough funds to fill the hole in their finances, and they do not have massive endowments.

My Lords, clarity on the future of the music and dance scheme to ensure access to specialist music and dance education for students, regardless of their background, is urgently needed. As a supporter of the National Youth Orchestra, I wholeheartedly support the points from the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, but I put in a plea to ensure that all our youngsters have a high-quality creative arts education in primary school and on through secondary school.

Music education is in a parlous state in many mainstream schools. Many commentators have pointed to the absence of the arts from the English baccalaureate as a key reason for the decline in these subjects in our schools. Secondary schools are measured on the number of pupils who take GCSEs in these core subjects. Another measure, Progress 8, introduced in 2016, adds further pressure to prioritise EBacc subjects. Neither the EBacc nor Progress 8 specifies music, dance or drama in their assessments. Since 2010—the year that the EBacc was introduced—there has been a 42% drop in overall arts subjects and GCSE entries in music in England have fallen 25%. Music A-level entries to England fell for the third consecutive year.

The EBacc has made art subjects an add-on with which schools can dispense, yet teachers tell me that music is often now the only subject where an entire classroom of 30 students work together as one, building collaborative skills and social confidence. Music develops creative intelligence; our creative industries start in the classroom.

Will the Minister assure us that creative subjects will be properly recognised in the anticipated curriculum and assessment review? The recent £88 million “Building Creative Futures” package is encouraging, but to ensure that every child has access to a high-quality music and arts education in school requires concrete action, not just good intentions. Will my noble friend the Minister start by putting the arts back into the EBacc?

My Lords, I speak in this short debate as someone who owes her career to a predecessor of today’s music and dance scheme. I will focus my time on what it takes to achieve that success in the highly specialised field of dance. Without that understanding, it is easy to underestimate the importance of the MDS.

Elite performance—and I use that word as we do for athletes—is performance at the limits of human potential, characterised by extreme flexibility, accuracy and speed. It is achieved only through 10 years of intense daily practice under expert tuition in specialist facilities; those 10 years have to start before puberty sets in if a dancer is going to compete in a global market. It is not just about physical prowess; it is about training the brain to send precise movement commands and issue corrections faster than the human eye can see. When you watch an expert dancer, you are seeing the cerebellum at its most extraordinary.

This intensity of training is impossible to achieve within the state school system, which does not have the teachers, the spaces or the hours in the day. And it is expensive; without government support, it is beyond the reach of many talented children. Over 50 years, Governments have recognised this through the music and dance scheme, which allows specialist schools to trawl wide and offer places on talent alone, blind to financial or social circumstances.

The Prime Minister has often said, “Talent is everywhere, opportunity is not”. The MDS schools offer that opportunity but 12 years of funding freezes mean that it is a system under strain. I therefore ask the Minister to press the Treasury to deliver the £4 million the schools need and restore the three-year settlements so that the schools can plan efficiently and children can be confident of completing the training they begin.

Without this investment, the scheme is at risk. This risks not only the talent pipeline that underpins the UK’s global creative success but a return to a world in which only the most advantaged can access the opportunities their talent deserves. I feel sure that the Minister does not want this to be the legacy of her party’s years in power.

I send my warmest congratulations to my noble friend Lord Blackwell and my appreciation of his dedicated service at the Yehudi Menuhin School. It is always a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who was principal dancer at the Royal Opera House when I was Secretary of State in the mid-1990s. She is a wonderful advocate for dance; it is always so important to remember that dance matters quite as much as music.

It was a privilege to be Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but I am aware that whereas on the sport side there was a real commitment to investing in creating international excellence and successful Olympiads, on the music, dance and arts side, much went into restoring our wonderful institutions, doing what Sir Ernest Hall called creating the “national treasure houses”. As he said, the National Lottery did for the arts and culture what the Medicis did for the cultural treasure houses in Florence. We did not focus on the pipeline, however, and that is the critical issue now.

Talent is everywhere; regrettably, opportunity is not. The 2024 Sutton Trust report on social mobility and the creative industries is a call to action. Privately educated students represent more than half the students at the most prestigious conservatoires. At Oxford, Cambridge, King’s College and Bath, more than half the creative students came from upper middle-class backgrounds. At Hull, where I had the joy of being chancellor for 17 years and which has a top 10 music school and a very impressive dance school, it was better but not good enough. Among under-35s, there are four times as many individuals from middle-class backgrounds in the creative industries. We have to do better to extend opportunity. The Sutton Trust calls for an arts premium to fund arts opportunities. I ask the Government: what is their practical action?

My Lords, I have worked to ensure access to excellent education for talented children from all social backgrounds, and specialist music and dance schools are no different. As a society, we have a duty to break down barriers that prevent young people from underrepresented backgrounds—working-class kids—achieving their potential in the subjects in which they have exceptional talent. Education transforms lives, enables social mobility and is a great way of investing in our economy and future growth. My friend Natasha Kaplinsky, chair of the Royal Ballet School, brought this issue to my attention. The school is a shining example of excellence and accessibility. However, it has great financial challenges.

I particularly like the title of the MDS paper, Supporting Potential Before Privilege. It is clear that we have to do this both to ensure fulfilment and success for the students themselves, and to safeguard the domestic talent pipeline for the creative sector, which contributes such a vast amount of money to the Exchequer, as well as providing thousands of jobs.

To sustain the success of our creative industries, we must nurture talent and develop skills. The UK’s status as a global creative superpower, of which I am hugely proud, is only as good as the talent that underpins it. The education that students receive in the music and dance schools simply cannot be provided in mainstream schools, and it must be protected. Financial support is critical to ensure that talented children and young people from all backgrounds can become the stellar performers of the future. It is also vital to enhance the resilience of the schools. I therefore strongly support calls on the Treasury to provide an uplift of £4 million to the current MDS settlement, and I support restoring three-year MDS grant agreements from the DfE. It would be a tragedy if not only was access limited but schools themselves had to close.

My Lords, there were comments last week about Canterbury Cathedral posting graffiti in the great cathedral as part of an exhibition to attract young people. Many people saw as it as an act of great vandalism. I rather saw it as quite avant-garde, experimental and exciting, but that is an aside.

I hope that by securing the music and dance scheme, we ensure that we do not commit an act of vandalism against one of the great music traditions in this country, which is, of course, English choral music. I can use the opportunity of this very brief speech to praise the Church of England for its support of English music. We have more than 2,000 choristers and more than 207 cathedral choirs. When I was in the other place, I was lucky enough to represent a constituency that had chalk streams in it, a unique geographical feature of England and northern France, and we fought hard to preserve them. We must not inadvertently lose one of the most important music traditions in this country.

In many respects, this debate is a metaphor for all Governments’ approaches to the arts. Nobody is suggesting that the music and dance scheme is under fundamental threat. It is part of the Government’s national music plan. It is ably supported by £34 million of funding. The message that goes out today from this debate, as it should for the arts in general, is: please may we have long-term funding rather than just one-year grants, which are impossible to manage? Three-year grants are not too much of an ask. Please, can we stop nickel-and-diming the arts budget? It is a pinprick on the Government’s budget. The budget for the music and dance scheme is a pinprick on their budget but the rewards are almost limitless.

My Lords, at this moment in the Government’s lifetime it feels important to make, or at least re-emphasise, some basic points. The arts, as opposed to the wider creative industries, are themselves an engine of growth. The more financial support there is from the Government, the more jobs are created and the greater the financial rewards, many times over, for the Treasury. This is aside from the democratic necessity of both the arts and arts education, which are part of the same ecology. I say this now because of the very worrying signs that this message about the importance of the arts to the industrial strategy is simply not getting through.

The signs include the hugely disappointing cuts to DCMS funding, which, as has been said, are drops in the ocean in relation to overall Treasury funding; the decision to stop state funding of the international baccalaureate, which is so important for the arts and critical thinking; and the complete axing of ITT bursaries for all arts subjects, including music, which the Independent Society of Musicians described as a damaging decision just before the final report of the curriculum review. These savings are false savings; they save very little money but are potentially devastating for the arts. With the eight music and dance schools in England, we are talking about the achievement of excellence in the arts alongside an inherent commitment to social mobility, a double whammy in a good way, and a no-brainer, surely, for the £4 million funding required to enable these schools just to survive. This is yet another test case of how much this Government are willing to make that commitment to invest in the arts that the Prime Minister himself promised for both the arts and arts education 18 months ago.

My Lords, first, I must say how much we miss Lord Lipsey in this debate as he was totally committed to the cause that we are discussing today. I support those who have spoken eloquently in favour of the future of the music and dance scheme and scholarships. My wife was for several years managing director of the English National Ballet and then went on to serve on its board for many years, and I know Caroline believes very strongly in the case for specialist schools.

I have two points to make. First, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about the importance of cathedrals, particularly in church music. My own cathedral, Carlisle Cathedral, set up the school that I went to some time in the seventh century, allegedly with St Cuthbert. It has a very long but fragile tradition, and it needs support. It needs a new partnership between the state and the church in this area of music education.

My second point is that, yes, we need more scholarships at specialist schools, but we also need a broader base of encouraging experts in the arts throughout our education system. This is where changes in the curriculum are so important. Before the election, the Prime Minister said:

“Seriously, in what world does learning to act, dance, sing or paint count less than learning a language from more than a thousand years ago?”

He went on to say:

“We’re going to update the Progress 8 performance measure and use it to help all kids study a creative arts subject or sport until they’re 16”.

Does the Minister believe that the Government are going to deliver on the pledge that Keir Starmer made?