The NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) curriculum review puts music courses at risk, not just in NSW, but across Australia. NSW has twice the number of students taking music than any other state. That makes it a leader.
The proposed changes fall short of research, best practice, and teacher expectations. This is despite NESA’s claims of strengthening post-school pathways and fostering lifelong learning, .
Worst of all, the “revamped” Music 1 course—the country’s most popular Year 12 offering — severs meaningful ties to further study or the music industry.
The back story
NSW has historically enjoyed the leading music curriculum in the country, when measured by innovations and research internationally.NSW modernised its senior music syllabuses in the 1980s and embraced integrated learning: students performed, composed improvised alongside traditional literacy and aural skills. This inclusive approach reflects real-world diversity and career pathways. It was strengthened in the 90s and in 2000 by a focus on multiculturalism, contemporary Australian music, and student specialisation.
“Music 1” is by far the most popular course. It’s a music-for-everyone course. You don’t need to have studied an instrument privately for years to take Music 1. You can be a Chopin-loving pianist, a shredding guitar soloist, or an Electronic Dance Music producer. You can study any music of the last 1,000 years. You can elect to specialise in performing, composing, or musicology. Or you can balance each of those learning experiences.
Envy of the nation
This broad choice has made us the envy of the nation. Dr Emily Wilson, senior lecturer in Music Education at the University of Melbourne, usually speaks jealously when she talks about our courses, because she says that at around 7% of the total HSC candidature, it’s twice the rate of student engagement compared to Victoria and Queensland.
“Music 2”, in its own words, “focuses on the study of Western art music”. Even this more traditional course was really cutting-edge for its time. It insisted all students learn to compose, even if their specialisation was in performance. And in the HSC year , it focuses on contemporary Australian Music rather than classical or romantic repertoire. Music Extension can only be taken by Music 2 students, with a Western art music focus. It has allowed these students to do a further specialisation in one area of their choice.
These courses were far from perfect. They feature outdated elements like requiring song submissions via written scores. Also, the obsolete “Concepts of Music” highlighted the need for more authentic approaches to music theory and literacy. Pedagogical breakthroughs in other countries would benefit NSW. These include the extensive research and practice in informal learning, and culturally responsive pedagogy.
The problem at NESA
Concerns about NESA’s reform began early. Educators experienced disappointment with the new K-6 and 7-10 syllabuses. They regressed from evidence-based integrated approaches and added rigid content. The opaque process was marked by non-disclosure agreements and vague public feedback summaries. By NESA’s own admission, it left educators guessing how their input shaped the final drafts.
The NSW syllabuses since the 1990s had been based on Swanwick and Tillman’s 1986 Curriculum Spiral model . NSW used to pride itself on a continuum from year 7 to year 12, with skills built on at each stage of learning. The proposed changes erase the continuity in the senior curriculum, performing, listening, and composing in years 7-10.
NESA relies on a workforce with varied professional backgrounds – rather than subject experts with deep teaching experience. That leads to poor decisions and leaves specialists grappling with flawed syllabuses. Meaningful consultation—such as face-to-face sessions across the state, not just online updates—would boost teacher morale. That’s particularly true in rural areas, where the process currently feels like a steamroller, pushing ahead despite clear deficiencies.
NESA’s shortcomings in understanding music education have been replicated in the recent release of an equally poorly researched and written drama course. All of the evidence (in the syllabuses themselves) suggests this is because of NESA’s intransigent position toward making the Arts subjects fit into the same template and nomenclature as the more “important” subjects such as maths, English, and science.
Attacks on Music 1 – Time Travelling, backwards
Music 1 has been the leading music course in the country because of its breadth of choice and inclusion. The draft syllabus destroys the diversity and inclusivity of the existing course, while at the same time making it weaker against its own evidence base.
Gone are the wide range of topics that can be studied, and in their place a restrictive list of mandatory “Focus Areas”. While many have incorrectly thought of Music 1 as “the pop course”, it actually served as a conduit for many classically-trained musicians in public schools that could not afford to run both courses. Sadly, that is most of them. Under the new mandatory list, this is impossible. Now songwriters, DJs, producers, and other contemporary musicians will be forced to study topics of little interest to them or relevance to their future careers. It is an aggressive narrowing of the curriculum which experts believe will lead to widespread disengagement from the course. Prescribed topics were part of the early music syllabuses for the 1950s Leaving Certificate, carried over to the first HSC music syllabuses, then relinquished in the 1980s in line with leading research and practice.
The proposed examination includes the introduction of a two-hour aural exam with increased weighting. The composition and musicology electives are being binned, reminiscent of the 1970s.
Attacks on Music 2 and Extension
The proposed Music 2 examination allocates 40 marks each to written and performance exams, with restrictive performance options and limited topic choices. That curbs students’ ability to pursue their interests. The composition component, worth 20 marks, mandates a duet, trio, or accompanied solo within a narrow focus on recent Australian art music. While these changes may aim for equity, they undermine the syllabus’s flexibility and breadth. Similarly, the Extension examination now limits specialisations, requiring either two performance pieces (including an ensemble) or two compositions, alongside another 50-mark written aural exam focused on unspecified ‘prescribed’ repertoire—an approach reminiscent of rigid external testing. NESA’s pushing of written exams is a return to post-Sputnik debates about legitimising music in the curriculum in the 1950s.
We assume – we hope – NESA does not realise that it is repeating the mistakes of 70 years ago.
What does the research base really tell us?
The current curriculum reform, meant to be based on the Geoff Masters review Nurturing Wonder and Igniting Passion, diverges significantly from its recommendations. The report called for simplifying an overcrowded curriculum but the new music syllabuses introduce more content points and prescriptive structures. It advocated integrating knowledge and skills, yet the new syllabuses prioritise what Elliott & Silverman term “verbal knowledge”—written knowledge about music—over musical knowledge, assessed through music-making.
Instead of flexibility, the new syllabuses impose mandated content, reducing teachers’ ability to adapt to their students. As Fuller notes, what works best may not work best for music education. Carter critiques NESA’s focus on the HSC, which pressures teachers to prioritize exam preparation over broader learning. Hughes highlights NSW’s fixation on maintaining standards and traditional benchmarks, with assessment driving curriculum changes. Teachers, however, recognise the importance of holistic approaches, and research confirms that successful teaching builds on students’ understanding of the subject.
A restrictive, exam-focused syllabus will inevitably result in restrictive, exam-focused teaching.
We need transparent curriculum reform led by experts
NSW is the biggest education system nationally and has led the way with senior secondary music enrolments for many years. This is due to its focus on active music making and promoting choice for students. That in turn places value on the musical interests of students, their autonomy, agency and inclusion.
We asked our Melbourne colleague Emily Wilson what she made of the new draft syllabuses and she said “Following a recent major review of the Victorian Certification of Education Music Study Design, we now have ‘Music Inquiry’, a project-based music subject explicitly positioned as music-for-everyone, moving Victoria closer to the existing NSW HSC Music 1 course.
Every student a stakeholder
“We have been looking to NSW for almost 35 years to lead the way with a progressive curricula. It’s important that this continues so that senior secondary music curricula keeps pace with the ever increasing rate of change in the music industry and broader society. Every Australian student and music teacher is a stakeholder in the NSW HSC Music Syllabus.”
James Humberstone is a senior lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney. He specialises in teaching music pedagogies, technology in music education, and musical creativities. James publishes traditional research focusing on music teacher worldview, technology and media in music education, and artistic practice as research. He is also a composer and producer whose music is performed in major venues around the world.
After a career as a music teacher and head teacher in NSW schools, and Chief Examiner of HSC Music in NSW, Jennifer Carter worked as a Senior Registration Officer at the NSW Education Standards Authority. She was a sessional lecturer for primary music and secondary music preservice teachers and has presented at music conferences both nationally and internationally. Her PhD thesis researched secondary classroom music teachers and the development of music syllabus documents.
