Today the BBC has run a feature on singing in schools and specifically presented to the nation the idea that every school should have a choir.
Clearly I, a trained singer who has participated in choral singing throughout my entire life, am not going to argue against schools having a choir! However, as with many of the music education initiatives we’ve seen in recent years, I wonder if this latest campaign is where we should really be putting our collective energy.
Choirs will only ever serve a minority of pupils. Even in the most inclusive settings, a choir is typically an optional, additional activity that relies on pupils choosing to take part, being available at the right time, and often having the confidence to opt in. This means that choirs, by their very nature, are selective; not intentionally exclusive, but structurally so.
If we’re looking to ‘bring back’ singing to state secondary schools (this being the phase identified in the recent Teacher Tapp survey as being of concern with regard to singing) then what really matters is what happens in curriculum music. Every child, regardless of background, confidence, prior experience, or timetable constraints, is entitled to high-quality classroom music teaching. This is where we reach all pupils, not just the keen, the confident, or the already-engaged.
Singing absolutely belongs at the heart of that curriculum. When singing is embedded into regular music lessons it becomes a shared musical experience rather than an extracurricular add-on. Pupils learn that singing is for them, not just for the ‘choir kids,’ or as one teenage relative of mine rather harshly phrased it ‘the music nerds!’ (I had to point out that I was a music nerd and proud of it!) From an equity perspective, this matters enormously. Curriculum music is universal, choirs are not. If we invest our energy, training, and resources into curriculum provision, we ensure that every child sings, not just a select few.
It’s also important to remember that choirs as an extra-curricular activity place an additional burden on already stretched members of staff. For some schools the addition of a choir will be the straw that breaks the music teacher’s back, especially if they are not a confident singer themselves. Choirs are also not a cost-neutral activity; although they don’t require instrumental resources they still come with resourcing costs, whether that is staffing (where a peripatetic teacher is in charge), provision of sheet music, or associated performance costs. Yes, a choir is by-and-large going to be cheaper to run than an orchestra, but schools will still need to find additional budget to make them happen.
This isn’t an argument against choirs. Strong music provision can and should include them. But choirs should be the extension of a solid, inclusive singing offer within the curriculum, not a substitute for it. The BBC’s own coverage has highlighted this in quotes from teachers and pupils in secondary schools: ‘Year 11 student Mercy, who’s part of the choir, says she always wanted to continue singing at secondary school. “In primary they say you have to sing, but when you come to secondary it’s a choice, so most people don’t do it,” she says.’ However, the associated discourse online has already latched onto the idea of a school choir as the most important driver of singing at secondary.
For me the primary focus should be on ‘does every secondary school include singing in the curriculum’ not ‘does every secondary school have a choir.’ Ideally we would all like both, but if we are going to campaign for the benefits of singing for all students, then the curriculum is where it starts.
Dr Liz Stafford, December 2025. Copyright © 2025 Music Education Solutions Limited. All Rights Reserved.
Further information and support:
Click here to read more blogs about music education
Click here for information on our Singing in Secondary Schools online self-guided course.
Click here for information on our webinars and certificate programmes
Click here to join our mailing list