Music lessons must remain affordable

I find it particularly noteworthy that the parliamentary motion „Music for All: Strengthening Music Education“ was submitted by a cross-party group of members of the Grand Council. The sponsors of the motion—led by Nadja Günthör (SVP)—call on the cantonal government to ensure that all families in the Canton of Bern can once again afford music lessons. The canton should provide additional funding so that the canton’s share of teacher salaries is significantly higher than the current 30 percent, thereby allowing for a substantial reduction in parental contributions. The group cites Article 12a of the Federal Act on the Promotion of Culture, which states that the economic situation of parents must be taken into account when setting music school tuition rates.

In their statement of reasons, the sponsors of the motion point out that few activities foster children’s cognitive and social skills as much as making music and learning an instrument, and that music schools are not training grounds for the elite, but rather serve to train the next generation for amateur orchestras, folk music ensembles, village bands, choirs, and the local band scene.
They write that the high parental fees—around 800 francs per child per semester—are increasingly becoming unaffordable even for middle-class families.
There is really nothing to be said against this, and the fact that the motion was submitted jointly by members of the Grand Council from the SP, the SVP, the GLP, the FDP, the Center Party, the EDU, the Greens, and the EVP suggests that there is broad consensus on this issue.

The State Council's response was disappointing

The Cantonal Council would like to convert the motion into a postulate. While it supports the motion’s sponsors’ goal of making music education in the Canton of Bern accessible to as broad a segment of the population as possible, it would first like to analyze whether an increase in cantonal subsidies would truly lead to more equitable access. I understand that the canton wants to—and must—save money, and that the cantonal government would therefore prefer not to increase cantonal subsidies, but this reasoning seems far-fetched to me. Of course, lower-middle-class families are more likely to be able to afford music lessons if the fees are lower.

And it is commendable that the canton has doubled the situation-based benefits for leisure activities—which also include cultural activities such as music lessons—for households receiving social assistance, from CHF 600 to CHF 1,200 per year per child, but this is not about those with the lowest incomes—for whom many support mechanisms are already in place—but rather about the lower middle class, that is, families who are not eligible for social assistance but who, after deducting rent, taxes, health insurance, basic necessities, etc., little disposable income left, and it also concerns middle-class families with several children. While they can generally afford music school fees, having multiple children means these fees become a significant financial burden even for them.

Many municipalities already fund more than the 30% of personnel costs stipulated by law. The Association of Bernese Music Schools VBMS writes the following in his statement titled «Music Must Not Become a Luxury Good» in response to the cantonal government’s reply: «An analysis of the 2025 reporting data shows that for nearly all music schools, the municipal contribution already exceeds the legally mandated 30% share of eligible personnel expenses, with a median of 35%. … Several municipalities have even contractually enshrined these additional contributions in their service agreements with the music schools.» Of course, the municipalities see that enrollment at their music schools is declining; they hear directly from residents that tuition fees are becoming too much of a burden; and it is therefore good that they have already taken action. However, the disparities between municipalities are growing because not all municipalities are doing—or are able to do—this. Unfortunately, this means that equal opportunity falls by the wayside.

The cantonal government would like to further investigate whether there is any flexibility in the structure of the fee system. Unfortunately, the music schools have very little flexibility: 85% of the costs are personnel expenses, and the amount of those expenses is set by the Music School Act. The costs remaining after municipal and cantonal contributions have been deducted must be covered by the parents; there is no sudden alternative solution to be found.

I would even accept the State Council’s objection that the decline in enrollment at music schools is not solely due to excessively high parental fees. The block schedules in elementary school mean that music lessons often cannot be attended until 4:00 p.m., and many children want to take lessons between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. at the latest, which simply isn’t always possible. Lessons scheduled three or more hours after school ends can be a real deterrent. Perhaps the option—which is already in place—to hold music lessons during block periods should be utilized much more frequently. Music teachers would certainly welcome this as well.

Collaboration Between Music Schools and Elementary Schools

The cantonal government’s latest proposal calls for closer collaboration between music schools and elementary schools. That sounds good, but so far no funding has been allocated for such projects. A jointly planned musical might be funded through the school budget, but if the goal is to achieve genuine musical enrichment through collaboration between music schools and elementary schools, these projects would need to take the form of singing classes, wind instrument classes, string classes, etc.—that is, classes in which every child plays an instrument under professional guidance for at least one or two years, or singing classes in which singing is incorporated into (almost) all subjects. Learning French «en chantant» is a project I’ve long wanted to see come to fruition. However, I doubt that this would result in cost savings compared to music school instruction, which is subsidized to a somewhat greater extent. One form of collaboration that could work and save costs would be the consistent provision of space in school buildings for music lessons after school hours. This would allow for many more simultaneous lessons and supervised practice sessions, which could potentially slightly reduce the number of minutes per child, since the children would generally spend much more time at the music school. However, this would require all teachers to be willing to teach according to this system.

I would like to urge the members of the Grand Council to keep in mind, when this motion is debated, that music education not only fosters cognitive and social skills, but that learning to play an instrument also provides unparalleled training in coordination, and that making music significantly improves one’s ability to concentrate—two things that are of great importance in many professions—meaning that an investment in music education pays off in the long run.