The 80% We’re Missing: Why School Music Isn’t Reaching Most Students

I recently had the opportunity to be a guest on the Choralosophy Podcast, and I’m genuinely grateful for the conversation. It’s not often that someone asks questions that stay with me long after the recording ends, but this one has.

At one point, the host raised a question that I haven’t been able to shake: If roughly 20% of students are participating in school music programs, is that actually a success?

From his perspective, it might be. Based on his experience, there are students who are naturally drawn to making music (singing, playing, performing) and others who seem content simply listening. In that framing, 20% participation could be seen as a strong outcome. Those are the students who want to be there, and the programs are serving them well.

There’s a lot to respect in that viewpoint. It reflects real experience, real classrooms, and real students. And to be clear, the work happening in school music programs is meaningful and often life-changing for the students who participate. But the question lingered for me, not as something to disagree with, but as something to extend. What if the 80% of students who are not participating in school music programs aren’t opting out of music altogether? What if they are opting out of the way music is structured in schools?

The Assumption We Don’t Always Notice

When we look at participation rates, it’s easy to move quickly from observation to conclusion. If students aren’t signing up for choir, band, or orchestra, the assumption can become that they simply aren’t interested in doing music. But that assumption depends on something we rarely stop to examine: Does school music offerings represent “music” broadly enough for students to recognize themselves in them? I’m not sure they always do.

Outside of school, young people are deeply engaged in music. They create beats, write songs, record vocals, remix tracks, and share music with friends. They experiment. They collaborate. They participate. So if students are already doing music in their lives, why aren’t more of them doing it in school?

One way to think about this is through something simple. Imagine a restaurant that only serves one kind of pizza. Let’s say sausage pizza . Some people will LOVE it! They’ll come back every week. They’ll tell their friends how great it is. But if most people stop coming, is it because they don’t like pizza? Or is it because the menu is too limited?

School music programs can sometimes function in a similar way. They offer something valuable, something many students love, but not necessarily something that invites everyone in.

Performance as the Default

In many secondary schools, music is structured around performance. Rehearsals lead to concerts. Students prepare music for an audience. Assessment is often tied to how well that performance is executed. Performance is powerful. It builds discipline, teamwork, and shared purpose. I’m not arguing against performance. But I do wonder if performance has become the primary, and sometimes only, way students are invited to “do music” in schools.

For students who already see themselves as musicians, that invitation works beautifully. For others, it can feel like a high bar. Performance can carry a sense of being on display. It can feel evaluative. It can suggest that you need to be “good enough” before you belong. It can limit the space for experimentation and risk-taking. For some students, that’s motivating. For others, it’s enough to stay away.

Participation as a Starting Point

What if we reconsidered the sequence? What if music programs were designed so that participation comes before performance, not after students have already proven themselves? Research on student engagement helps here. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) describe engagement as a key driver of learning, especially when experiences feel relevant, social, and meaningful. Lucy Green’s (2008) work on informal music learning shows that students often prefer collaborative, exploratory approaches that mirror how they experience music outside of school. These ideas point toward a simple but important shift. Instead of requiring readiness before participation, we can create readiness through participation.

Two Models, Side by Side

This shift becomes clearer when we describe the difference in how music programs are structured. In many schools, music is centered on performance, with a strong focus on the final product, usually a concert. Evaluation often plays a central role, and students may feel like they need a certain level of skill before they can fully participate. Instruction is typically teacher-directed, with the ensemble working toward a shared outcome under the guidance of the director.

An expanded model doesn’t remove those elements, but it shifts the emphasis. Instead of centering everything on performance, it begins with participation. The focus moves from product to process, from preparing a performance to engaging in music-making itself. Exploration becomes just as important as evaluation, and students are able to enter without needing prior experience, developing skills over time. The teacher still plays an important role, but students are more actively involved in shaping the musical experience.

Musicking and a Broader Definition

The musicologist Christopher Small described music as something we do, not just something we perform. Listening, creating, rehearsing, improvising, producing are all forms of what he called musicking. If we take that idea seriously, school music programs may be unintentionally narrowing what counts as participation. When performance becomes the central form, other meaningful ways of engaging with music can be left out. And when definitions narrow, participation often narrows with them.

Barriers Hidden in Plain Sight

Another way to think about this is through barriers. Traditional ensemble-based programs often require a combination of skills and dispositions: reading notation, technical proficiency, comfort with performance, and long-term commitment. Again, these are not problems in themselves. But together, they create a threshold. Students who meet that threshold participate. Students who don’t may never enter.

A different analogy helps here. Imagine a gym where the only option is to compete in a bodybuilding competition. Some people would be excited by that challenge. They would train, commit, and push themselves. But many others (probably the majority), people who want to move, be active, and improve, would never walk in the door. Not because they don’t value fitness. But because the entry point doesn’t match where they are. When participation is tied only to high-level performance, participation shrinks. When multiple entry points exist, more people find a way in.

Reconsidering the 20%

So is 20% participation a success? In many ways, yes. The students who are involved are gaining meaningful, often life-changing experiences. But the more important question may not be about the 20%. It may be about the 80% (rarely studied in music education research). If we assume those students simply don’t want to do music, the conversation ends. If we consider that the structure of music education might not be inviting them in, the conversation opens. This isn’t about criticism. It’s about possibility.

Expanding the Landscape

If we begin to see participation as the entry point, new possibilities emerge. Schools might expand their offerings to include songwriting, music production, modern band, or informal music-making spaces. These are not lesser forms of music education. They are different pathways into it. They reflect how many students already engage with music in their lives. The goal is not to replace traditional ensembles. The goal is to expand the landscape so more students can find a place within it.

A Shift in Perspective

Perhaps the most important shift is in how we interpret student behavior. Instead of saying, “They don’t want to do music,” we might say, “They haven’t yet found a way to see themselves in the music we offer.” That shift moves us from judgment to design.

Continuing the Conversation

I’m grateful to the Choralosophy Podcast for prompting this reflection. The conversation felt thoughtful, respectful, and grounded in a shared commitment to students and music education. I don’t see this as a disagreement. I see it as an extension. There may be students who prefer to listen rather than actively make music. That’s part of the musical world. But when a large majority of students are not participating in school music programs, it’s worth asking whether preference alone explains it, or whether structure plays a role. The goal isn’t to prove that 20% is too low. The goal is to imagine what might be possible if more students saw a place for themselves in music.

References

Allsup, R. E., & Benedict, C. (2008). The problems of band: An inquiry into the future of instrumental music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 16(2), 156–173.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

Green, L. (2008). Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy. Ashgate.

Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Wesleyan University Press.