In a recent interview on National Radio with Kim Hill, Dr Carr stated that the music school proposal has "stirred up a few people" whom he claims "repeat the same arguments numerous times and shrieking louder doesn't make them better or different arguments."
Leaving aside for the moment the false claim that only a "few" people are concerned, I find the accusation that the same arguments are repeated numerous times somewhat ironic given the constant refrain by supporters of the proposal that it will bring vitality to the centre city and only a music school at the Arts Centre could attract talented musician and teachers to the city. Not a shred of evidence is presented to back up these claims.
If repeating arguments doesn't make them better or different, it is also the case, as Dr Carr would do well to remember, that constant repetition of misleading information and half-truths does not make them any more true.
Lets examine a couple of examples. First is the assertion that the delay in developing a new building for the New Zealand School of Music gives Canterbury an opportunity to claim a leading position as New Zealand's premier classical music educator. In his submission to the Council consultation process Dr Carr continued to make this claim, despite an earlier corrective letter to the Press from Victoria University in response to the publication of misleading information about the status of the New Zealand School of Music in the series of advertisements promoting the Conservatorium which appeared in the Press. During the consultation process we heard unequivocal evidence from secondary school music teachers that serious students of music aspire to go to the New Zealand School of Music. It is recognised as the premier institution. To be an effective conservatorium, there would need to be a large increase in numbers of both staff and students. Yet we heard evidence that numbers of music students have been declining over the past several years.
A report commissioned at the end of 2008 by the music departments of the South Island tertiary institutions to assess likely enrollments in 2009 did not provide much comfort. Over 50% of relevant schools responded, which according to the authors was enough to give a good relationship between music study in senior high school and university. The survey showed that only around 35 % of students taking music at high school intended to continue with some music study at tertiary level. When questioned about choice of university, it was clear that the majority planned to attend their local university ( around 17 students in the case of Canterbury) Unless 2008 was a completely aberrant year, the findings of this report, which was not disclosed, would have provided the Council with a much more reliable estimate of likely future music school numbers than the grandiose and unrealistic aspiration for 500 students put forward by the university.
The financial officer of the University confirmed at the consultation that the music department is currently cross-subsidised by the whole university. It is therefore in no position to increase staffing to the sort of breadth which might begin to attract more students. Furthermore, Dr Carr is already on record as saying that the university currently has more students than its receives funding for. An increase in music students would place further financial strains upon the university, unless any increase in numbers is met by full fee-paying students. However, it is risky to count on this when the department is not the first choice within New Zealand and they would be competing with not only other institutions within New Zealand but also internationally. The survey of South Island students made it clear that facilities were not a prominent factor in choice of institution and it is equally unlikely to be a major factor with full fee-paying students.
Dr Carr was also economical with the truth during the interview when he claimed, once again, that an opinion survey commissioned by the University, carried out in August, shows 60% of people are not opposed to the location of the Conservatorium at the Arts Centre. What the survey actually found was that overall 37% of those surveyed supported it, 34% opposed it and the remaining 29% were sitting on the fence, with a margin of error of +4.4% at the 95 % confidence level. He completely failed to mention that when the respondents were asked specifically how strongly they supported or opposed the location, 36% were opposed , while only 31% were in support. The strength of opposition was stronger than the strength of support (16% strongly opposed 8% strongly supportive). This was an on-line survey of 500 people, of whom at best 37% or 185 people supported the proposal. No images were shown and the information given was minimal. The 40 % who had not heard about the proposal were given the following statement and then asked to comment.
"The Christchurch City Council is considering building a national Conservatorium of music building at the Christchurch Arts Centre at a site on Hereford St currently used for car parking. The University of Canterbury would lease the building off the Council and pay back all the construction costs though lease payments."
Even back in August, the claim that the survey showed a majority either supported or were open to the proposal was dubious. Not desiring to commit one way or another based on limited information is different from being 'open' to a proposal. However, events since August make the claim entirely unacceptable now. As public knowledge about the proposal has grown, so has the opposition. Over 4000 petitions have been collected. Of the 506 submissions to the Council consultation process, 475 or 94% were opposed and only 6% in support. Similarly, of the 215 submissions on the resource management process, 86% are in opposition. Even the editor of the Press, in a recent editorial supporting the decision of the Council to fund the proposal, admitted that letters in opposition far-outweighed those in support.
There is a groundswell of opposition which Dr Carr cannot be ignorant of and which he needs to acknowledge. It is no good saying that the university is engaged in a conversation with the city when it only wants to converse with those who share its views.
