Music Education Research, 2014

Vol. 16, No. 2, 127–143, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2013.847073

Musician and teacher: employability and identity

James Garnett*

Institute of Education, University of Reading, Reading, UK

(Received 20 November 2012; final version received 16 September 2013)

This article reports on a study into factors that contribute to the employability of
music graduates as teachers. By considering the results of a survey that covered a
range of contexts, as well as interviews with secondary school head teachers, it
considers the relationship between self-identity and employability. It finds that, in
developing their identity as a teacher, music graduates not only make a transition
in identity from musicians to music teachers, but that they also make a second
transition in order to think of themselves as teachers within the particular context
in which they are going to work. It concludes that the first of these transitions
might successfully be avoided if pedagogy was to be considered as an aspect of
musicianship from the outset. The second transition, however, requires the
prospective teacher to construct a narrative of employability that reconceptualises
their experiences and abilities in terms of the context in which they intend to
work. This involves negotiating a tension between articulating the perceived
current needs of an employer and demonstrating the potential to become an agent
for change.
Keywords: employability; musician; teacher; identity

Introduction
The preparation of music teachers for employment in England plays out institution-
ally two sets of tensions in values that will be present in different forms in other
jurisdictions. First is the tension between being a musician and a teacher of music. In
England, this is embodied in what is the dominant model of undergraduate study
of music (at university or conservatoire) followed by a one-year Postgraduate
Certificate in Education (PGCE): musician first, then teacher. Second, whilst the
Department for Education refers to the preparation of teachers as Initial Teacher
Training (ITT), many of those engaged in this activity refer to it as Initial Teacher
Education (ITE). This highlights a distinction between an intention to train teachers
by inducting them into an established body of practice, and an intention to educate
teachers so that they can contribute to the construction and reconstruction of
practice. To be employable as a music teacher is to navigate this pair of tensions: one
becomes a musician who teaches to the extent that one is inducted into and then
extends the community of practice of music teachers.
This article explores these issues through a review of the literature and through
an empirical study in order to consider the implications both for those who may

*Email: [email protected]
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
128 J. Garnett

become music teachers and for those who educate them. It will begin by placing the
question of employability within the context of the undergraduate study of music.

Context
Teaching has become an important element of employability for music graduates.
According to statistics from the Higher Education Statistics Agency in the UK, in
2002, 13% of music graduates entered performance-related work, 8% became music
teachers and 74% entered other occupations (Higher Education Academy (HEA)
2003). Thus, over a third of those entering a music-related occupation were teachers.
Beyond this, however, in her more recent study in Australia, Bennett (2009) found
that 97% of the students completing a performance degree expected to have a
portfolio career in which teaching played a part, and that those who were already
working as performers spent 87% of their time teaching. This compared with just
1.1% of core course time devoted to teaching during their degree. Thus, not only was
teaching an important element in the employment of these graduates, but it was an
aspect of their professional practice for which they received very little formal
training. A similar picture is evident in the UK. For example, Haddon’s study (2009)
of final year students at the University of York found that although 45% of the
students in the year group regularly gave instrumental or vocal lessons, they learned
to teach by experience rather than through formal training.
Formal training for music teachers in the UK is almost entirely related to the
context of the secondary school. There are a few programmes of postgraduate study
available for those wishing to become instrumental teachers or primary school music
specialists. However, the regulatory and institutional mechanisms for the award of
Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) are organised along subject lines only in relation to
teaching in secondary school and therefore discourage such courses. Although there
is well-developed provision for both private and publicly funded instrumental
teaching, there is thus no regulated qualification as there is for classroom teachers
(Henley 2011).
The implications of this for investigating the employability of music graduates
as teachers are twofold. On the one hand, the principal group that can be identified
as seeking employment as a music teacher consists of those who have chosen to
train as secondary music teachers. Yet, on the other hand, these are likely to
represent only a subset of all music graduates who will go on to teach music in one
form or another. Indeed, Welch et al. (2010) found in their study of ‘Teacher
Identities in Music Education’ that the majority of music undergraduates in the
study were positive about working in music education in some form, but 85% of
them were not considering training as a secondary music teacher. Likewise, Mills
(2005) found little enthusiasm among conservatoire students for the prospect of
classroom teaching. Those who choose to train as secondary music teachers are thus
a special case amongst the population of prospective music teachers. Whilst they
may be capable of providing the richest and most conclusive data on employability
(not least because they have an easily identifiable employer), these data relate to a
specific context that can only be generalised to the wider population of music
teachers with care.
 Music Education Research 129

Defining employability
Yorke (2006, 8) defined employability as:

a set of achievements – skills, understandings and personal attributes – that makes

graduates more likely to gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations,
which benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy.

This has been accepted in the literature as a ‘working definition’ (UK Commission
for Employment and Skills (UKCES) 2008) not least because definitions abound,
and there is recognition that defining employability could quite easily subsume the
task of improving it. Three key issues arise from this definition and the literature
around it.
First, one reason behind the range of definitions, and a key observation in a
number of sources, is that the nature of employability is highly context-specific
(Yorke 2006; HEA 2006; UKCES 2008). The set of achievements that makes a
graduate more likely to gain employment depends crucially on the nature of the
employment, but also on the needs of a specific employer. In addition, the skills,
understanding and attributes that students will need to develop in order to improve
their employability will depend upon how their current education fits into the
context of their lives. For example, a 21-year-old graduate might find communica-
tion or organisation skills to be the key issues for employability; an older student
training to be a teacher may have gained these skills through prior employment, and
subject knowledge development may be a higher priority.
The second key issue is the nature of the attributes that make someone
‘employable’. Some sources consider these to be those generic skills that sit around
specialist knowledge, packaging it in such a way as to enable students to apply it to
the workplace. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills has developed a
comprehensive synthesis of such ‘employability skills’ from a range of sources under
the headings: self-management, thinking and solving problems, working together
and communicating and understanding the business (UKCES 2009). Useful though
such attributes undoubtedly are, HEA (2006) identifies three problems with
collections of ‘employability skills’. Research has found that these lists of attributes
and what employers actually look for when recruiting are, in practice, not necessarily
the same. Moreover, different people within an organisation may have different lists,
meaning that a concept of employability is constructed socially by means of the
power relationships between the various stakeholders in recruitment. It is also to be
expected that employers’ requirements will change over time, so that any such list
will become out of date. Yorke (2006) makes the point that employability has arisen
as a concern because the world of employment has been satisfied with the
understanding and skills developed in higher education within disciplines, but has
been less happy with the ‘generic skills’ such as those that are identified in the model
above. HEA (2006) rejects this opposition of disciplinary and generic skills, however,
arguing that the two are complementary and that pedagogy for employability is most
effective when developing disciplinary skills through the medium of skills that
prepare students for employment.
The third key issue is that Yorke’s definition specifically does not address the
process of gaining employment (e.g. interview skills), but the fundamental learning
that will increase the probability of a student successfully gaining a job. Whilst this
130 J. Garnett

makes an important distinction between the substance of employability and effective

interview technique, this position is qualified by other authors. HEA (2006) points to
the importance of self-awareness, suggesting that employability consists partly of
conscious knowledge of what makes one employable. In this sense, the ability to be
reflective and to communicate about one’s suitability for employment – abilities
which play an important role at interview– are also inherently part of what it means
to be employable. Brown (2007) observes that employability involves the ability to
construct a narrative of employability in which an individual presents his or her
skills, experiences and accomplishments in ways that are compatible with what an
employer is looking for. This ability to construct a narrative is not just good
interview technique, but demonstrates an ability to understand the world of the
employer, indicating that the individual will be able to apply other attributes
successfully. Indeed, Yorke observes that his definition of employability is not just
about gaining a job, but about being able to function within a job once appointed.
A further issue to be considered in relation to teachers is that the UK government
has, in effect, defined employability for school teachers in the form of its
requirements for the award of QTS. Not only does gaining QTS in itself make a
music graduate more employable as a teacher, but the process of acquiring the
qualification involves the student in developing employability attributes as a teacher.
Indeed, it is worth observing what is perhaps obvious, that ITE courses are designed
to embody the pedagogy for employability (including employer engagement for
example) that is described in the literature on employability in HE (such as HEA
2006; UKCES 2008, 2009). Stating the obvious would be unnecessary were it not for
two conditions that apply to music teachers. First, as noted above, the study for and
award of QTS applies primarily to a subset of music graduates who become teachers:
those who wish to teach in the secondary school classroom. The second issue is
that the award of QTS does not encompass everything that makes a teacher
employable: for any particular job, the selected candidate will have been judged to
be more employable than those who are rejected.
To sum up, employability involves the ability to accommodate one’s abilities
(knowledge, skills, understanding) to the context of an employer. Implicit in this
requirement is not just the possession of the relevant abilities, but also the
understanding required to interpret the context of the employer in order to adapt
oneself to it.

Employability and identity

If music graduates are to accommodate their musical and pedagogical knowledge and
skills to the context of employment (or indeed self-employment) as a teacher (whether
in a secondary school or elsewhere), they not only need to recognise the need to make
this accommodation, but be motivated to do so. In other words, they need to think of
themselves as teachers. Developing a self-identity as a teacher is therefore important
because who we think we are influences what we do (Watson 2006).
Bennett (2009) draws on social cognitive career theory to argue that, in the
creative industries, success is defined largely in terms of self-identity and meeting
professional and personal needs. She observes that students who choose to study
music are generally those who have engaged successfully with musical activity, not
least in successfully auditioning to be accepted onto a Higher Education (HE)
 Music Education Research 131

course. Their self-identity, and hence their concept of success, is therefore rooted in
musical performance (or by extension the branch of music in which they choose to
specialise at university, music production for example). This is reflected in a
perceived hierarchy of career, with performing at the top and teaching further
down. Rogers (2002) also recognised this tendency and addressed it by seeking to
redefine the concept of what a musician is, and found that far from embracing the
broader notion of performer/teacher those engaged in professional performance
sought to narrow their self-identity further, for example conceiving themselves as a
violinist rather than as a musician. These studies suggest that there is a significant
barrier to students developing their employability as teachers if this is not part of
their concept of being a successful musician (particularly if being a teacher is part of
their concept of having failed as a performer).
The process of forming a positive self-identity as a teacher involves expanding the
concept of success so that it embraces rewards intrinsic to teaching as well as those
related to music as an artistic pursuit. Both Mills (2005), in connection with
classroom teaching and Bennett and Stanberg (2006), in connection with instru-
mental teaching, found that positive experiences of teaching during their studies had
a positive impact on students’ self-identity as a teacher. In a study based on teacher
training in Sweden, Ferm (2008) explored the way in which students who were
engaged in the study of musikdidatik – the theory of teaching and related learning of
music – were also engaged in forming their identity as teachers. This involved
developing their understanding of the aims of their teaching as well as their teaching
abilities through a process of dialogue with existing teachers and a growing
awareness of their own teaching and learning experiences. The students’ acts of
teaching and learning were thus interpreted as identity-making opportunities in
which the roles of musician and teacher become combined.
Georgii-Hemming and Westvall (2010), also in Sweden, take this a step further
by examining the development in identity that takes place in the transition from
student teacher to teacher. They consider teacher training to be not simply a matter
of learning, nor to stop with the process of a musician becoming a music teacher, but
to constitute a process of occupational socialisation. They regard the HE institution
and the school-based mentor as having a vital role in supporting trainee teachers as
they shed the role of a student and adopted that of a teacher. In developing the
ability of students to function independently as teachers the HE institution and
mentor are thus contributing to the students’ employability.
In Georgii-Hemming & Westvall’s analysis, however, this transition between
trainee and teacher can be problematic. They identify a difference in culture between
what trainee teachers are taught in their HE institution – which is based around the
Swedish National Curriculum – and the practice that they experience in school –
where it was found that experienced teachers generally ignored the National
Curriculum and taught according to their interests and strengths. Students thus
experienced a tension between the model of teaching they were taught at university
and what they experienced in school. The former was central to their developing
concept of what a music teacher should be, the latter central to their understanding
of current practice and hence what a practising (i.e. employable) music teacher is
like. This tension is not peculiar to Sweden. In the UK there are aspects of musical
pedagogy where principle-based approaches taught in ITE courses are in tension
with widespread practices in schools: assessment for 11-to-14-year-olds in England is
132 J. Garnett

a case in point (Fautley 2010). More fundamentally, however, teacher education

does not regard itself, and has not been regarded by government, simply as an
induction into the current practice of teaching, but as an important agent of change.
Jackson and Serf (2008) make this point in their analysis of the 2007 revised
Standards for QTS. They identify the requirements on trainee teachers in connection
with data analysis, e-learning and personalisation as being ahead of the reality in
some schools, again creating a tension between what trainees must do to succeed on
their programme of study and what they must do to ‘fit in’, and share the identity of
a qualified, practising teacher in a school.
Not only do trainee teachers have to adjust their identity to comply with the
expectations of practising teachers when seeking employment, they will probably
also have to adapt themselves to an environment in school where music is not the
main focus of activity. In their study of what head teachers in America consider
when hiring a music teacher, Brinkman and Mallett (2000) found that musical ability
was generally taken as a given, and was not a key factor in the recruitment process.
To a non-musician, the possession by applicants of a music degree was sufficient to
establish their musical credentials, and so head teachers were not interested in
candidates’ skills or identity as a musician or specifically as a teacher of music.
Brinkman and Mallett found that what did interest the head teachers was the
candidate’s behaviour management and classroom management skills, their personal
attributes and philosophy of education and their generic teaching skills. To head
teachers, the candidates who most resembled teachers, and who were therefore the
most employable, were not necessarily those with a strong identity as a music
teacher, but those who had a strong identity as a teacher.

Empirical investigation
From this review of the literature, it would appear that to enhance their employ-
ability as music teachers, music graduates need to have developed a self-identity as a
musician who teaches, and moreover one who teaches within the framework
provided by a particular context of employment (be that in a secondary school or
elsewhere). Without this sense of identity it would be difficult for individuals to
develop an understanding of an employer’s context and accommodate their
knowledge and skills to the requirements of that context. This identity is forged
through the process of acquiring musical and pedagogical knowledge and skills and
also through a process of occupational socialisation (Georgii-Hemming and
Westvall 2010).
An empirical study was carried out to explore these issues among people who
were already working as music teachers and who had therefore successfully
demonstrated their employability. Of particular interest was the interaction between
the role (or roles) in which individuals were employed (or self-employed) and their
concept of themselves as teachers and musicians. The first research question to be
addressed was therefore:
1. To what extent do those who work as music teachers conceive of themselves as
teachers and to what extent as musicians?
In addition, the study was interested in exploring how music teachers might be
called on to change the way they think about themselves in order to enhance their
employability. The second research question was therefore:
 Music Education Research 133

2. In what ways might music teachers need to modify the way they think of
themselves in order to enhance their employability?

Methodology
The first question was investigated by means of an online survey of music teachers.
An invitation to contribute to the survey was distributed through members of the
National Association of Music Educators (NAME) and the National Association of
Music in Higher Education (NAMHE) but was not restricted to members of these
organisations. There were 199 responses to the survey, collected over a three-week
period in 2011. One hundred and five of the respondents identified jobs connected
solely with teaching (instrumental, classroom and lecturing), 24% of whom had more
than one employer. Seventy nine identified jobs that involved both teaching and
working as a musician (selecting from outreach/community music, performing,
composing and arranging, music production and ‘other’ roles as a musician). Of
these, 25% held just two jobs (one teaching, one as musician), the remaining 75%
identifying between three and nine different roles. Spanning both of these subgroups
were 59 individuals who worked as classroom teachers in state-run secondary
schools. For 38 of the 59, this was their only job. However, 21 of them identified
between one and five roles in addition to their classroom teaching, some of which
involved work as a musician. Four respondents who described their roles solely as
musicians or as ‘other’ and did not respond to subsequent questions have not been
included in the analysis of data; neither have the 11 who did not identify their roles.
This provided a self-selected sample of 184 individuals who worked as a teacher or as
a teacher and as a musician. Following contextual questions on employment patterns
and qualifications, the survey asked how respondents thought of themselves as music
teachers using the four questions set out in Figures 1–3 and Table 1.
In addition to addressing the first research question, the survey also provided
some insight into the second. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they
were involved in the process of recruiting other music teachers (and 59 of the 184
did so). This provided a subgroup whose views on employability would potentially
reflect those of an employer, especially in connection with the question analysed in
Table 1. On analysing the data it was apparent both that this subgroup expressed
views that were different from those who did not have responsibility for
recruitment but also that the subgroup was sufficiently diverse that few conclu-
sions could be drawn from these data. It was therefore decided to investigate the
second research question further by carrying out interviews with secondary school
head teachers.
The four secondary school head teachers who were interviewed were selected
from local schools where (for ethical reasons) there was no direct connection between
the music department and the University of Reading. Two of the schools were for
11–16 year-olds with a single music teacher, and two were 11–18 schools with a
larger music department. In semi-structured interviews, the heads were shown the
results in Table 1 and asked to comment on how these compared with their own
views. They were also asked how the characteristics they looked for in a music
teacher compared with those in other subjects, in what ways specific needs of their
school influenced their priorities when recruiting, and whether they were aware of
tensions between the pedagogy of Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) and the culture
134 J. Garnett

of their school. In addition to these questions about their attitudes to the

employment of music teachers, the head teachers were asked contextual questions
about their own involvement with music and their recent experience of recruiting
staff to their music departments. Different supplementary questions were asked in
each interview in order to explore particular issues that arose. The interviews were
recorded and transcribed so that common themes could be analysed.
The conduct of both the survey and the interviews was reviewed and approved by
the University’s research ethics committee.

Findings
1. To what extent do those who work as music teachers conceive of themselves
as teachers and as musicians?
The survey questions analysed in Figures 1 and 2 invited open, text-based answers.
Many respondents took their cue from the questions and responded in ways which
accepted the distinction between ‘teachers’ on the one hand and ‘musicians’ on the
other. This was reflected in the coding of the answers. Not all accepted this binary
opposition, however. For example, one response to the question shown in Figure 2
stated: ‘I think these questions … are ridiculous! I am a musician and a teacher
rolled into one. I teach and I am a musician – I never separate the two’. This
response, and others like it, is reflected in the coding of Figure 2, which distinguishes
between ‘Teacher and musician equal’ and ‘Teacher and musician integrated’. (The
survey offered no definition of what constitutes a musician or a teacher beyond the
selection of roles described above. For the purposes of this study it was considered to
be sufficient to establish whether the respondent thought of themselves in some way
as a teacher or as a musician.)

80%

70% 68%

60%

50%

40%
32%
30%
23%
19%19%
20% 15%
11% 12%
10%
1% 1%
0%
Musician Teacher Musician and Management Other
teacher role

Only Teaching role (N=105) Teaching and musician role (N=79)

Figure 1. When you introduce yourself to someone, what do you say your job is?
 Music Education Research 135

60%

49%
50%

40%
34%

30%

23%

20% 17%
16% 15%16%

10% 11%
9%
10%

0%
More teacher Teacher and Teacher and More musician Other
than musician musician equal musician than teacher
integrated
Only Teaching role (N=105) Teaching and musician role (N=79)

Figure 2. As a music educator, to what extent do you think of yourself as a musician, and to
what extent as a teacher?

The most interesting feature of these data is the disparity between the way in
which respondents would describe their role and the way in which they say they
think of themselves. Whereas, in Figure 1, only 2% of those in a teacher-only
role would introduce themselves as either a musician or as a musician and teacher,
Figure 2 shows that 42% of this group think of themselves as both a teacher and
musician, 15% reporting that they think of themselves more as a musician than as a
teacher. Likewise, among those with roles as both musician and teacher, 32% said
they would introduce themselves as a teacher, but only 16% think of themselves
more as a teacher than as a musician. These results suggest that being a musician
plays an important role in the identity of music teachers even when it does not form
part of how they would describe their job. Even amongst those who thought of
themselves more as a teacher than as a musician, only five respondents described
themselves entirely a teacher. Similarly, among those who considered themselves
more as a musician than as a teacher, only five thought of themselves entirely as a
musician. (It is interesting to note that the responses of the 59 individuals who work
in secondary schools demonstrated almost exactly the same profile as that of the
‘Only teaching role’ group.)
A more nuanced understanding of the interaction between the two identities
can be gained from the way in which responses to these questions were expressed.
Some saw their identity entirely in terms of their role: ‘100% as a teacher’; and
some likewise attached the identity of musician directly to the time they spend
136 J. Garnett

making music: ‘80% teacher; practical musician (performing and composing) is

more a hobby really!’ (both comments from classroom teachers in independent
schools). For others, their persona as a musician has been entirely absorbed into
that of a teacher ‘I am still a musician first but my job is as a music teacher’. In
some cases this absorption is such that legitimacy as a teacher depends on self-
identity as a musician: ‘A musician first and foremost which enables me to teach’
(both quotes from secondary school class teachers). For some, valuing their
expertise at teaching enhanced the way in which they see themselves: ‘A brilliant
teacher- but dodgy performer’ (independent school class teacher and private
instrumental/vocal teacher); ‘These days, I think of myself as about equal parts. I
never used to. But music teaching has made me musical’ (various roles including
class and instrumental teaching as well as work as a musician). For others, the
identity of musician remained dominant: ‘I am a musician first, and teacher
second’ (primary school class teacher and instrumental teacher working for a
music service); ‘I think of myself as a musician through and through. I love
teaching – it is a real passion – but I can only enjoy and do it as well as I do
because I am a musician to the core and I have a wealth of experience to bring
to my teaching’ (instrumental teacher working in school, for a music service,
privately and as a community musician). The variety of these perspectives
notwithstanding, they illustrate the way in which many (though not all)
respondents distinguished between their activity as teachers or musicians and
their identity. They also illustrate the ways in which the values implicit in these
identities contribute to a sense of self-worth.
The question analysed in Figure 3 provided further insight into respondents’
identity as teachers by asking what they valued most about this role. It did so by
again asking for open, text-based answers. Most of the responses emphasised
different aspects of working with young people through music, and these nuances
were reflected in the coding.

40% 38%

35% 31%
30%
25% 21% 21%
19%
20% 16%
14%
15% 12%
10%
10% 8%
3% 4% 4%
5% 1%
0%
Working with Focus on Wider impact Sharing Focus on Variety of Other
young young of music on experience musical the role (including no
people people’s young of music experience response)
music people’s lives with others

Only Teaching role (N=105) Teaching and musician role (N=79)

Figure 3. What is it about your practice as a music educator that you value most?
 Music Education Research 137

Whilst almost all respondents wrote comments that expressed in some way the
value they attributed to their relationship with those they were teaching, those
working as musicians and teachers tended to place more emphasis on the musical
aspects of the relationship, and those working solely as teachers showed more
awareness of non-musical aspects of their students’ lives. (Again, the profile of
responses from the 59 secondary school teachers was almost identical to the wider
group within teaching-only roles.) However, what is perhaps most notable is
that only three respondents made comments that suggested they derived value
from the artistic practice of music rather than the pedagogical relationship with their
students. (These comments are included amongst those coded as ‘Own musical
experience’. One of the respondents wrote ‘Being a musician’, the other two wrote
‘Performance’.)
2. In what ways might music teachers need to modify the way they think of
themselves in order to enhance their employability?
Table 1 summarises responses to a question in the survey that presented
respondents with 17 factors which the literature review identified as contributing
to employability, and asked them to indicate which they felt were important to
their own employers. Many people selected a large number of the factors that were
listed (the mean number selected was 9). In order to analyse these responses, the
percentage of respondents who selected each factor was calculated, and the factors
placed in rank order, most popular first. These were then analysed according to
those with teacher-only roles and those working as teacher and musician, but also
according to those who had indicated that they were involved in recruiting other
music educators. In Table 1, differences of more than 4 ordinal places between
Recruiters and Non-recruiters and between Teachers only and Teachers and
musicians are highlighted in italic bold type. (It is worth noting that more
classroom teachers attached importance to behaviour management skills and
having a positive approach towards colleagues than those teaching in other
contexts. They attached less importance to understanding the educational context
in which they worked.)
There were some factors that attracted universal agreement: the ability to
inspire and engage students was consistently thought to be important and key
skills in numeracy, literacy and Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) consistently unimportant relative to the other factors. Indeed all categories
of respondent were in general agreement about four of the top five places in the
table. However, it is interesting to note where the views of those involved in the
recruitment process diverged from the other categories. In general, these
respondents held the generic qualities of teachers (such as self-management skills
and behaviour management skills) to be more important than did those who
weren’t involved in recruitment. Specifically musical factors (such as qualifications
as a musician) were held to be correspondingly less important. These data tend to
confirm the findings of Brinkman and Mallett (2000) that those with responsibility
for recruitment take the musical capabilities of applicants for granted and look
primarily for other factors.
The interviews with head teachers provided an opportunity to follow up this
question from the survey, relating these factors specifically to the context of
secondary education and exploring in more depth the thinking of these particular
head teachers. The interviews confirmed that the relative priority given to these
138 J. Garnett

Table 1. What is it about your practice as a music educator that is most important to the
people who employ you? (i.e. Why do they choose to pay you?).

Teachers
Non- Teachers &
Recruiters recruiters only musicians

Your ability to engage and inspire students 1 1 1 1

Your understanding of the educational 2 4 4 3
context you work in
Your ability to plan and to structure pupils’ 3 2 2 5
learning
Your self-management skills 4 10 9 8
Your ability to work with others 5 3 3 4
Your ability to organise and work with 6 6 6 7
groups of students
Your positive approach towards colleagues 7 7 11 6
Your wide range of musical skills and 8 5 8 2
knowledge
Your behaviour management skills 9 13 10 16
Your personal philosophy of teaching 10 15 13 11
Your ability to demonstrate pupil progress 11 9 7 12
Your thinking and problem-solving skills 12 16 14 14
Your ability to assess pupils 13 14 12 15
Your qualifications as a teacher 14 8 5 13
Your high level of expertise and knowledge 15 11 16 9
in a specific musical discipline (e.g.
classical violin, jazz improvisation,
composing)
Your qualifications as a musician 16 12 15 10
Your key skills in numeracy, literacy 17 17 17 17
and ICT
Differences of more than four ordinal places between recruiters and non-recruiters and between teachers
only and teachers and musicians are highlighted in italic bold type.

factors varies considerably between individuals, reflecting the particular circum-

stances of schools but also, and in a less predictable way, head teachers’ own
experience and preferences. Thus, for example, Head teacher A dismissed the
importance of having a personal philosophy of teaching, saying that he didn’t set a
lot of store by it and was more interested in the question ‘Can they teach the
lessons?’ By contrast, Head teacher B attached great importance to candidates being
able to express why teaching was important and why they wanted to do it. This
suggests that any approach that attempted to develop students’ employability by
coaching them in factors that appear higher up the list for employers would founder
on the rocks of individuality. As Head teacher D put it, ‘I can’t speak for other
heads – we’re all different’.
What did emerge unanimously from all four heads, however, was that when
recruiting a music teacher they are recruiting is a teacher first and foremost. What
they look for in a teacher of music is fundamentally the same as what they look for
in a teacher of geography or English. This has three implications, which emerged
 Music Education Research 139

from the interviews. First, it places a strong focus on pedagogy, and on those aspects
of pedagogy that relate to the context of working in a secondary school. Head
teacher C expected a ‘high level of pedagogical understanding’ expressed in ‘the
language of learning we use in this country at the moment’, and three of the head
teachers, regarded an understanding of pupil progress and an ability to demonstrate
it in an interview lesson as an important measure of a candidate’s ability as a
teacher. (The fourth, Head teacher B said that he would apply this criterion more to
a head of department than to an NQT). Thus, while their priorities for defining an
outstanding teacher varied somewhat, the head teachers all expected an outstanding
music teacher to have the same characteristics as an outstanding teacher in any other
subject.
Second, whilst recognising the importance of subject knowledge (for music, as for
geography for example), head teachers suggested that a good teacher of music
doesn’t necessarily need to be a good musician. Head teacher C articulated a view
expressed by all: ‘It’s about being a great teacher, not a great musician’. For him,
being a ‘middling musician’ might even be better, if that meant a higher degree of
understanding for struggling students. Head teacher D said much the same thing:
‘Having a high qualification in playing the violin won’t necessarily meet [the
children’s] needs’. Head teacher B went so far as to say there was a tension between
being a brilliant musician and being able to ‘translate that passion to young people’.
He, together with Head teachers A and C, considered breadth of musical expertise to
be important, with the ability to play different instruments motivating students and
providing credibility in their eyes.
The third implication of the head teachers’ emphasis on the general qualities of a
teacher was a preference for candidates who demonstrated an ability and interest in
working outside the confines of their subject. All of the heads wanted to appoint a
teacher in their school, not just a teacher in their music department. This would be
someone who involved themselves in the extra-curricular life of the school outside
music – as a form tutor, leading outward-bound expeditions, supervising residential
trips. This was particularly important for the head teachers of the smaller, 11–16
schools. Head teacher B described flexibility and adaptability, including a willingness
to teach other subjects, as very positive qualities in a candidate, with a lack of
interest in areas outside music being correspondingly negative.
Whilst emphasising the general qualities of a teacher and expressing the priority
of a teacher’s ability in the classroom, two of the head teachers nevertheless referred
to the particular qualities of a music teacher in relation to extra-curricular music.
Head teacher A considered teaching the curriculum to be a ‘given’ in order to get the
job, but that in addition to this he would look for the ability of a candidate to lead
musical clubs and activities. Indeed, he regarded the ability to generate excitement
and passion in young people as a requirement that was ‘singular to music’. This was
a ‘Pied-piper’ quality that is needed to encourage young people to stay behind after
school for band and choir rehearsals. Head teacher C also attached great importance
to the ability to get students to join in, focus and enjoy activities outside the school
day. ‘In terms of employability – ability to lead extra-curricular and model it is very
important’. Thus, although employability was defined primarily by the general
qualities of a teacher in relation to the curriculum, for these two head teachers at
least, what is particularly important about a music teacher is their potential to
provide leadership for extra-curricular musical activity.
140 J. Garnett

All four head teachers identified a candidate’s potential for growth as an

important factor in their employability. All regarded reflective practice and
continuing to learn from colleagues as being vital throughout a teacher’s career,
and would therefore look for this quality in those entering the profession. The
capacity to continue learning partly reflected the view that ‘we don’t expect anyone
to come to us as a finished article’ (Head teacher D), but also the experience that it is
not always possible to appoint exactly the person you need. ‘You have to appoint
potential … Can we make them into the person we want?’ (Head teacher C). It also
captured the sense of looking further into the future, to appoint someone who
demonstrates leadership potential and could be promoted through the school (Head
teachers A and D).
None of the head teachers recognised the possibility of tensions between the
pedagogical expectations of ITE and those of the school. This is not to say the
tensions don’t exist. For example, Head teacher C asserted the importance of using
National Curriculum levels to support assessment for learning within the school in
exactly the way in which Fautley (2010) and Ofsted (2012) discourage their use. In
this case, the potential tension between practices was overcome simply by asserting
the dominance of the school’s model. Head teacher D, by contrast, described a
process by which differences in pedagogy might be resolved through discussions
between NQTs and their induction tutor and in departmental meetings, with the
potential that established departmental processes might be adjusted to accommodate
new practices introduced by newly qualified staff. Indeed, Head teachers A, B and D
all referred to the value they placed on NQTs bringing new ideas into the school,
with Head teachers A and D acknowledging the role of NQTs in forming a bridge to
the educational research community.

Discussion
In this current study, 97% of the sample, all of whom were working in various
capacities as a teacher and all of whom had received specialist musical training,
thought of themselves at least to some extent as a teacher. Moreover, 97% also
thought of themselves at least to some extent as a musician, even if they would not
describe their job in those terms. For most of these practitioners, teaching thus
provided a context in which they were being musicians. It was an extension of their
musicianship in which the values that defined success were conceived primarily in
terms of the relationship with their students rather than in terms of artistic values.
This is consistent with the findings of Bennett (2009) and Mills (2005), both of whom
found that musicians who had initially conceived of success in terms of the artistic
values that are connected with a performing career came to derive a positive sense of
identity from their interaction with students.
In order for musicians to see themselves as successful teachers, regardless of the
context in which they will teach, it is necessary for them to expand their sense of self-
identity so that they are capable of defining success in relation to their students’
development as well as in relation to artistic values. However, the investigation of
the second research question suggested that this expansion of identity is not sufficient
in developing the employability of music graduates as teachers. Whereas success for
the teacher-musician is conceived in relation to student development and artistic
values, success for those employing music teachers is defined by the context of
 Music Education Research 141

employment. In the case of secondary school head teachers this involved the ability
and willingness to contribute to the school at large, not just in the music department.
To be employable, applicants would need to absorb these values and expand their
identity once again, so that they were able to think of themselves as secondary school
teachers, not just as music teachers. The results reported in Table 1 (which included
those with experience of recruiting instrumental as well as classroom teachers)
suggest that secondary school teaching is just one example of this. The disparity in
values between those who had experience of recruitment and those who did not
supports a more general view that employers will view success according to the
priorities dictated by the context in which they work. Just as teacher-musicians who
wish to be employed in secondary schools will need to think of themselves as
secondary school teachers, those who wish to be employed by instrumental teaching
services will need to think of themselves as peripatetic teachers and those who wish
to be employed for orchestral education work will need to think of themselves as
community musicians.
Becoming employable within a particular context thus involves absorbing the
values implicit in the priorities of that context. This is what Ferm (2008) described as
a process of occupational socialisation and Brown (2007) as the re-situation of
learning within a community of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991). However, the
interviews with head teachers also support the view from the literature that this is not
simply a question of conformity. As employers, the head teachers were not just
trying to address their current need for a teacher of music within their school, but
also valued the capacity of those they employed to continue to develop as teachers
and to adapt to change. This suggests that successful applicants in any context will
need to have absorbed the values of their employer sufficiently to negotiate the
boundary between conformity and change. Employability is thus a dynamic
construct that combines the meeting of current needs with the recognition that these
needs will change over time and that successful employees will be capable of
becoming agents in this change.

Conclusion
This research suggests that for many who teach music, there is a close connection
between their self-identity as a teacher and as a musician. Having made the step into
teaching, being a teacher is part of what it means to be a musician; and, conversely,
being a musician involves the passing on of musicianship to others. From the point
of view of the employability of music graduates, it would seem that fostering this
approach to musicianship from the earliest stage would be advantageous for three
reasons. It would enable musicians – who we know are likely to derive at least some
of their income from teaching – to develop a positive image of themselves as teachers
as part of their identity as a musician. This in turn would prevent the negative
connotations of a transition in self-identity where success as a teacher becomes a
substitute for failure as a musician. Thirdly, if this were to be achieved through a
study of pedagogy alongside other aspects of musicianship, it would result in music
teachers who are better equipped for what they do as well as more positive about it.
However, there remains a second transition that prospective teachers need to
negotiate in order to enhance their employability. This is the transition from being a
music teacher to being a secondary school teacher or a primary school teacher or a
142 J. Garnett

teacher in a music service or a private instrumental teacher; or indeed a combination

of these roles. In order to become employable in a specific context, teachers need to
understand the requirements of the institution and of the children in that context,
and to construct a narrative of employability in which they relate an awareness of
their own experiences and abilities to those requirements.
Whilst this two-phase shift in identity poses challenges for would-be teachers and
their lecturers, it also poses a challenge for employers. In its most recent triennial
report on music education, the schools inspectorate, Ofsted, was highly critical of
music education which, in many cases, it found to be insufficiently musical: There
was too much talk in music lessons; too much focus on explaining lesson objectives;
too much time spent on assessment (Ofsted 2012). In other words, inspectors found
too much emphasis on those aspects of teaching that derived from institutional
priorities relating to the context of the lesson (whether taught by a classroom teacher
or an instrumental teacher from a local authority music service), and too little
emphasis on musical pedagogy. This observation suggests that some music teachers
may go too far in thinking of themselves as teacher first and music teacher second,
and some employers may not go far enough in recognising the potential of their staff
to challenge and extend the environment in which they work. Thus the tension
between training and education, teacher and musician defines the narrative of
employability, not just in preparing to teach and in the recruitment process, but into
employment. Without the dynamic created by these tensions it would potentially be
a very dull narrative.

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Higher Education Academy for this
research project, as well as the support of the following colleagues who contributed to the
Project Team: Ian Axtell (Birmingham City University), Chris Dalladay (University of East
London), Melissa Dobson (Guildhall School of Music and Drama), Steve Halfyard
(Birmingham Conservatoire), Catherine Preston (Edge Hill University) and Charles Wiffen
(Bath Spa University).

Notes on contributor
Dr James Garnett lectures in music education at the University of Reading, where he is
Subject Leader for Music and Director of Secondary Initial Teacher Training. He completed
his DPhil in music in 1993, trained as a secondary school music teacher in 2000 and taught in
secondary schools for 8 years before joining the University of Reading. James was Chair of the
National Association of Music Educators (NAME) in 2011–12 and is a trustee of the Music
Education Council.

References
Bennett, D. 2009. “Academy and the Real World: Developing Realistic Notions of Career in
the Performing Arts.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 8 (3): 309–327. http://ahh.
sagepub.com/content/8/3/309.abstract?rss = 1 on 1/9/11
Bennett, D., and A. Stanberg. 2006. “Musicians as Teachers: Developing a Positive View
Through Collaborative Learning Partnerships.” International Journal of Music Education
24 (3): 219–230.
Fautley. 2010. Assessment in Music Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Music Education Research 143

Ferm, C. 2008. “Playing to Teach Music – Embodiment and Identity-Making in Musikdidaktik.”

Music Education Research 10 (3): 361–372. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/
cmue/2008/00000010/00000003/art00003 on 1/9/11
Georgii-Hemming, E., and M. Westvall. 2010. “Teaching Music in our Time: Student Music
Teachers’ Reflections on Music Education, Teacher Education and Becoming a Teacher.”
Music Education Research 12 (4): 353–367. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/
14613808.2010.519380 on 1/9/11
Haddon, E. 2009. “Instrumental and Vocal Teaching: How do Music Students Learn to
Teach?” British Journal of Music Education 26 (1): 57–70. http://journals.cambridge.org/
action/displayAbstract?fromPage = online&aid = 4012252&fulltextType = RA&fileId = S0265
051708008279 on 6/9/11
HEA. 2003. Enhancing Graduate Employability in HE Music Provision: Report on A seminar
held at Bath Spa University College. York: Higher Education Academy http://www.
heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/subjects/palatine/enhancing-graduate-employability-in-HE-
music-provison on 5/9/11
HEA. 2006. Pedagogy for Employability. York: Higher Education Academy. http://www.
heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/employability/id383_pedagogy_for_employability_357.
pdf on 1/9/11
Henley, D. 2011. Music Education in England – A Review by Darren Henley for the
Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. London:
Department for Education. https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publication
Detail/Page1/DFE-00011-2011 on 6/9/11
Jackson, P., and J. Serf. 2008. “The 2007 Revised Standards for Qualified Teacher Status:
Doubts, Challenges and Opportunities.” FORUM 50 (1): 127–136. doi:10.2304/forum.2008.
50.1.127
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mills, J. 2005. “Addressing the Concerns of Conservatoire Students about School Music
Teaching.” British Journal of Music Education 22 (1): 63–75. http://journals.cambridge.org/
action/displayAbstract?fromPage = online&aid = 291670&fulltextType = RA&fileId = S0265
051704005996 on 6/11/9
Ofsted. 2012. Music in Schools: Wider still, and Wider. London: Office for Standards in
Education. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/music-schools-wider-still-and-wider on 21/8/12
UKCES. 2008. Review of Evidence on Best Practice in Teaching and Assessing Employability
Skills. Leeds: UK Commission for Employment and Skills. http://www.ukces.org.uk/assets/
bispartners/ukces/docs/publications/employability-skills-project.pdf on 1/9/11
UKCES. 2009. The Employability Challenge: Full Report. Leeds: UK Commission for
Employment and Skills. http://www.ukces.org.uk/assets/bispartners/ukces/docs/publications/
employability-challenge-full-report.pdf on 1/9/11
Watson, C. 2006. “Narratives of Practice and the Construction of Identity in Teaching.”
Teachers and Teaching 12 (5): 509–26. doi:10.1080/13540600600832213.
Welch, G., R. Purves, D. J. Hargreaves, & N. Marshall. 2010. “Reflections on the Teacher
Identities in Music Education [TIME] Project.” Action, Criticism & Theory for Music
Education 9 (2), 11–32. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Welch9_2.pdf on 23/8/13
Yorke, M. 2006. Employability in Higher Education: What It Is – What It Is Not. York:
Higher Education Academy. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/employability/
id116_employability_in_higher_education_336.pdf on 1/9/11
Rogers, R. 2002. Creating a Land with Music – The Work, Education, and Training of
Professional Musicians in the 21st Century. http://www.youthmusic.org.uk/assets/files/
HEFCEreport1.pdf on 2/10/13
Copyright of Music Education Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.