A brief outline of the structure and history of the music education (instrumental and vocal) system in Slovenian schools is provided to explain the context to international readers:

The state of Slovenia provides two main types of music education for children and teenagers between the ages of 6 and 19: classroom music education and instrumental and vocal music education (Eurydice, 2024). Classroom music education occurs in elementary schools (children between the ages of 6 and 15) and several high school programs (students between the ages of 15 and 19).

At the elementary level, instrumental and vocal music education occurs in specialized music schools organized in a network of elementary music schools across Slovenia. Five music high schools are at the intermediate level, and one Academy of Music at the University of Ljubljana (AEC Music, 2017).

Slovenian music schools are integral to the European Music School Union (Rotar Pance, 2019; EMU, 2022; Hahn et al., 2024), representing a system with a 200-year-old tradition. This system, evolving significantly after Slovenian independence in 1991 (Rotar Pance, 2012), includes state-run music schools and government-approved private music schools, amounting to 54 public and 17 private institutions (Music Institutions Register, 2024). Slovenian music schools offer programs in music and dance education. In the following section, we focus on instrumental music education programs.

There are 27,161 music school students in the school year 2023/2024, which is 12.61% of the Slovenian school population. Most (84%) are elementary school students aged 7 to 15. There are 22,027 students enrolled in the MUSIC program – instrumental music education or singing (Ministry of Education, 2024).

The Music Schools Act of 2000, amended in 2006, and the related implementing regulation provide the legal framework for this education system, setting forth goals such as: “talent identification, personality development, improving the overall level of the education, and establishing a base of musical knowledge and experience to enable participation in amateur instrumental ensembles, orchestras, choirs, or dance groups” (Music Schools Act, 2000/2006; par. 2). Among other goals, it also prescribes supporting students’ personal development per their abilities and the development principles.

The journey of individual instrumental education in Slovenia typically commences at the age of seven, although this may vary depending on the instrument. To enroll in instrumental classes, students must first pass a musical ability entrance exam, ensuring a certain level of proficiency. The curriculum is structured into two tiers: the 1st tier of instrumental music education spans 6 years, followed by the 2nd tier, which lasts 2 years.

The curriculum includes individual lessons on the chosen instrument, classroom theory or solfège classes, and a gradual introduction to ensemble playing and orchestra. In the first 3 years of study, the curriculum consists of two 30-min weekly individual lessons on the chosen instrument and one 45–60-min group theory or solfège lesson. In the 4th year, students of most instruments start to play in some form of ensemble setting (wind band, string orchestra, symphony orchestra, or choir singing). Over the course of 8 years, students are systematically assessed and graded in all music school subjects, including instrumental performance, theory, and ensemble participation, providing a comprehensive learning experience. The curricula are structured around specific learning outcomes as well as progressive learning outcomes. Such a structure should enable music teachers to provide the required differentiation for each student – especially in one-to-one individual instrumental instruction. However, there is no precise data on how this is carried out in everyday music school practice. The necessity of passing annual exams, except in the first grade, shows a systematic yet rigorous approach toward providing a high-quality foundation for instrumental music education.

Although the Slovenian music education system is very specific, there are some similarities with various international types of music education. In Slovenian music schools, children between the ages of 7 and 15 have instrumental music lessons in the form of individual instrumental instruction, internationally known as private studio instruction or one-to-one tuition. The theory and solfège lessons are held similarly to what is internationally known as music theory classes at the higher education level (university), while their ensemble lessons are similar to wind band or choir rehearsals held at schools.

Research on dropout in group and individual musical instrument instruction is presented from now on, as students in Slovenian music schools participate in both types of instrumental education. The age of participants in the following literature review corresponds with the age of Slovenian music school students – 7 to 15 years unless stated otherwise.

While there is a well-established body of literature on dropout in school band and orchestra programs, more research is needed in the context of private studio musical instrument individual teaching. Existing research on reasons for dropping out of instrumental music education discovers intertwining external and internal factors.

Research on dropout in school band and orchestra programs finds the following main external dropout factors: other competing interests and commitments (Cook, 2013; Hurley, 2021; Hash, 2022), logistical issues, including scheduling (Kinney, 2010; Busch et al., 2012; Cook, 2013; Hash, 2022) and issues associated with students’ social environment. These include lack of support among peers (Cook, 2013), lack of parental support (Cook, 2013), inadequate parental or teacher support (Pitts et al., 2000), and family structure. There are higher levels of dropout among students from single-parent families (Kinney, 2010), and higher levels of mothers’ expressed concerns about practice reflected in higher levels of their children dropping out from instrumental training (McPherson and Davidson, 2002). Socioeconomic status – the lower the SES, the higher the dropout rate is strongly associated with the dropout phenomenon in group music instruction (Corenblum and Marshall, 1998; Albert, 2006; Kinney, 2010; Busch et al., 2012).

Internal contributing factors toward dropout include academic achievement – students who struggle academically may be more prone to drop out (Gamin, 2005; Kinney, 2010); students’ attitudes toward their musicianship – if students do not find personal satisfaction in instrumental music, they are more likely to drop out (Hash, 2022); unwillingness to spend time for instrument practice (Gamin, 2005; Cook, 2013) and loss of motivation (Busch et al., 2012).

Krause et al. (2020) examined reasons for dropping out of participation in musical activities among 190 Australian residents aged 17–75 years. In retrospect, the participants provided answers that can be placed in both previously presented categories: “access and opportunity” and “obligations” correspond with the external factors category, while “activity experience” and “difficulty with practice” correspond with the internal factors category.

Gerelus et al. (2017) point out that more than research focused on dropout with band and orchestra students may be needed to generalize findings to individual studio instruction, as later has its unique challenges, different from group instrumental teaching. Gerelus et al. (2017, p. 29) name factors such as »difficult solo repertoire, close teacher relationship, lack of social group aspect and a large extracurricular time commitment« as making private individual lessons different from group music teaching.

Contexts of research on individual instrumental instruction slightly differ in each case. Therefore, each is presented in more detail. Costa-Giomi (2004) and Costa-Giomi et al. (2005) found behavioral differences among persisting and dropout piano students. Dropout students were less likely to have siblings, missed more lessons, practiced less, completed less piano homework, and achieved lower scores on piano exams than continuing students. They achieved less from the beginning of their studies than their continuing peers. Costa-Giomi (2004) identified lowered motivation and diminished achievement as early predictors of dropout behavior in piano students. In a subsequent study, Costa-Giomi et al. (2005) found that dropout students elicit more verbal cues from the teacher but get fewer praises from the piano teacher as they accomplish fewer assigned goals. Behavioral differences may help identify late but not early dropouts (Costa-Giomi et al., 2005).

King (2016) identified the primary reasons for dropping out of piano studio instruction. Predictors of musical ability, musical achievement, practice habits, and long-term commitment could accurately predict dropout but did not always impact motivation. Dropout students began lessons later in childhood, had less overall musical ability, weaker practice habits, and were progressing far more slowly than the continuing students. The main reasons for stopping lessons included lack of practice, preferring other instruments, and losing interest. The only predictor that impacted motivation was the quality of parental involvement. King (2016) reached an important conclusion about the connection between motivation and dropout; she found that dropout piano students were significantly less autonomously motivated than their persisting peers.

Gerelus et al. (2017) researched the role of expertise (musical ability, academic achievement, and musical achievement) and environment (social and educational status, gender differences, parental involvement, and home culture) in students’ decisions to drop out of piano lessons. Dropout students reached significantly lower playing levels, despite taking lessons longer, had much higher instances of stay-at-home mothers, and fewer academic or professional mothers; in general, dropout group students’ mothers were overall less educated than mothers of persisting students. Gerelus et al. (2017) describe dropout group parents’ behavior as being overbearing and contributing to student dropout.

Gerelus et al. (2020) found significant differences in types of motivation between dropout and persisting piano students. Dropout students demonstrated less autonomous motivation and stronger amotivation. They started to play the piano later in their childhood than the persisting students and practiced less, although practicing was not necessarily related to motivation. The authors state that dropout students may have lacked competency, relatedness, and autonomy, which resulted in feelings of amotivation. They define a lack of competency as connected with dropping out. As in King’s (2016) research, Gerelus et al. (2020) found parental involvement related to dropping out – parents sitting in lessons were negatively correlated with autonomous motivation, as parents may have overstepped their boundaries to interfere with the lesson setting. The level of autonomous motivation of dropout students was insufficient to sustain further music study. The authors state that the decision to drop out is connected to a lack of autonomous motivation.

Contributing external and internal factors to dropout are quite similar to those in the school band or orchestra settings, but there are some differences: in the internal factors category, piano dropout students had weaker long-term commitment, lower overall musical accomplishment, and musical ability. In the external factors category, they started playing piano later in their life, missed more lessons, were less likely to have siblings, and had higher instances of stay-at-home mothers who were overall less educated than mothers of continuing students (Costa-Giomi, 2004; King, 2016; Gerelus et al., 2017, 2020).

Loss of motivation is a recurring factor in relation to dropping out in both types of instrumental music education. Therefore, it requires further examination.

Motivation attributes between 12 and 27% of music achievement (Asmus, 2021), yet there is »a limited number of studies on children’s motivation in the context of learning a musical instrument« (Oliveira et al., 2021, p. 105). “Providing an autonomy-supportive, musically stimulating, and encouraging environment may prove more important than any predispositions to musical learning” (Blackwell and McPherson, 2022, p. 75).

Pitts et al. (2000) investigated the motivations and behavior of young instrumentalists in their first 20 months of learning. They compared motivation in students who ceased lessons and the ones who persevered. The complexity of musical learning is clearly shown in their research, as they describe the interplay of motivation, practice strategies, environment, and personality acting in proportions that authors find difficult to separate. Pitts et al. (2000) found that even the most motivated children had periods of self-doubt and required support from the teacher and parents. Authors suggest that students who lose motivation lack self-efficacy or external support and are especially susceptible to other negative influences. They point out that empathetic parental and teacher support is essential to progress, as is effective practice; they claim children ought to be taught and implemented (Pitts et al., 2000).

McPherson et al. (2012, p. 59) define »demotive factors« in the instrumental learning context: »serious short-comings about the quality of practice sessions, lack of parental support, significant antagonism around practice sites, boredom, an absence of personal engagement, limited learning autonomy over nearly all areas of learning, restrictive forms of music making and learning (i.e., the dominance of performance from notation and absence of other forms of performance like playing by ear and improvising), and, for many, very limited progress in terms of musical skill development in both instrumental/technical and notational/literacy areas« (McPherson et al., 2012, p. 59).

Inadequate teaching materials (Asmus, 2021), social comparison, normative grading criteria, public evaluation forms, ability self-assessment, and competitive musical environment (West, 2013) decrease motivation. McPherson et al. (2016) recognize many teaching practices undermining student autonomy and motivation in the classical master-apprentice lesson setting.

Self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2002) has received wide recognition in the context of instrumental music education research (Evans et al., 2012; Evans, 2015; Freer and Evans, 2018; Gerelus et al., 2020; Lee and Leung, 2020; Oliveira et al., 2021; Shaheen, 2022). Self-determination theory explains why an individual is motivated to engage in an activity or to stop engaging in it according to the satisfaction of three psychological needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy. The need to feel competent is the desire to feel adequate and successful in acquiring and performing skills. The need for coherence is the desire to feel socially connected and integrated. The need for autonomy is the desire to feel self-determination and control over one’s activity (Ryan and Deci, 2002).

From the perspective of self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985), children’s motivational decline and eventual dropout occur when their psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness in their musical learning are »being thwarted« (Evans et al., 2012, p. 17). Evans (2015) suggests that rather than questioning how to motivate students, parents, and teachers should strive to create social environments in which their “students are more likely to generate their own interest, enjoyment, and motivation so that they can identify the value of musical practice, integrate it with their sense of self” (Evans, 2015, p. 78).

There is a duality of dimensions in music teachers, as they need to be both musicians and teachers. They must develop a professional identity and professional activity. During their studies, future music teachers are trained in their musical instrument mastery as well as in the field of pedagogy. The development of both identities is not parallel. Through the educational process of future music teachers, more emphasis is put on developing the identity of a musician/performer compared to the identity of a music teacher (Rotar Pance, 2019).

Blackwell & McPherson (2022, p. 72) outline 12 general principles for those »who provide instrumental and vocal lessons to children: » (1) everyone can benefit from music education, (2) start early, (3) immerse the child in other aspects of music, beyond learning to perform, (4) allow choice when selecting and choosing to change instruments, (5) consider the developmental appropriateness of the learning environment, (6) motivation is the key to success, (7) understand how students learn, (8) make the learning journey »visible« in order to foster a sense of musical identity, (9) do not use tests of music aptitude to determine who learns music, (10) design learning to minimize biases and stereotypes, (11) focus on the love of music and avoid external rewards, pressures, and controls; (12) develop a healthy state of mind through support, love, and encouragement».

As the teacher’s role in individual musical instrument instruction dropout has yet to be researched in more detail, the existing research does provide some answers: music teachers point to two significant dropout factors in students: unwillingness to spend time practicing and poor academic performance (Gamin, 2005). Williams (2002) points to the complexity of students’ motivation to continue or discontinue musical studies. Individual instrument teachers can detect early signs of students’ motivation decreasing and intervene accordingly (Williams, 2002). He indicates that some parents allow their children to take full responsibility for their learning, while some students hold their teachers responsible for the outcomes of their lessons.

Davidson et al. (1998) researched music teachers’ characteristics and the young instrumentalists’ progress. Their study included 257 young people between the ages of eight and 18 who had received instruction on at least one musical instrument. They divided the participants into 5 groups. In Groups 1–4, there were active musicians – from highly successful to amateur. In Group 5, young ex-musicians are children who dropped out of music lessons. The students in Group 5 rated their instrumental teachers with »the least positive ratings« (Davidson et al., 1998, p. 149) in the following characteristics: friendly – unfriendly; relaxed to tense; chatty to quiet; encouraging to not encouraging; pusy to unpushy; good teacher to bad teacher and good player to bad player. The dropout students rated their last teachers lower in encouragement than all the other groups. They also rated their last teachers as significantly worse than any other group.

Hash (2022, p. 13) claims that »exactly how students’ positive or negative feelings toward their instrumental music teachers affect retention remains unclear« and suggests that »almost all decisions made by instrumental teachers have the potential to influence student retention« (Hash, 2022, p. 39).

Similar to music activities, sports are popular after-school activities in many ways. In both fields, the dropout phenomenon of early cessation of activity is common. Roček et al. (2021, p. 72) state that “we still face a massive dropout of children from the sports, which is not replaced with an adequate alternative physical activity.” Fraser-Thomas et al. (2016) and Woods and Butler (2021) state that 50–70% of youth participate in organized sports activities in Westernized nations. Still, around 35% of participants leave youth sports programs annually, and by the age of 13, there is an estimate that 70% of youth leave sports activities. This way, they are losing out on developmental and health benefits (Battaglia et al., 2024). Crane and Temple (2015) find five major areas contributing to dropout in sports among children and youth: lack of enjoyment, perceptions of competence, social pressures, competing priorities, and physical factors (maturation and injuries). Back et al. (2022) found that intrapersonal constructs related to motivation and sports experience had the strongest relationship with dropout.

Roček et al. (2021, p. 72) state that the consequences of dropping out of sports activities bring a range of personal, health, and social problems. While the impacts of instrumental music education dropout might not be as detrimental, Pitts and Robinson (2016) underline the important role of music education in laying the foundations for lifelong participation and providing all children with experience and understanding of making music.

In McPherson et al. (2012, p. 56) study in Australia, “three-quarters of the 104 surveyed adults had given up musical instrument playing, and negative views of their instrumental learning experiences were widely reported.” There is a considerable variety in instrumental music education praxis worldwide. Therefore, dropout numbers are generally hard to obtain. Moreover, they cannot be easily compared. The existing data across countries, albeit at different points in time, show that dropout in instrumental music education is steep:

According to the AMA (2001), about 25% of Australian students drop out by age 12, with another 25% discontinuing by age 15, citing boredom, loss of interest, and little motivation as reasons for dropping out (StGeorge, 2006); in Serbia, 22% of students between the ages 7 and 12 leave their instrumental tuition in music schools within the first 2 years (Bogunović, 2010). The exact data on the percentage of students who drop out of Slovenian music schools in Slovenia has not been purposefully collected and cannot be obtained. However, the Republic of Slovenia Statistical Office (SURS (2014/2015), n.d.) reports the difference between the number of students enrolled in the 1st classes of the Slovenian music school MUSIC program (20, 630) and the number of students who successfully finished the MUSIC program in the previous school year (2, 788). These two numbers would suggest an 86.5% dropout from Slovenian music schools. However, this percentage must be tentatively interpreted, as there is no available data on the number of students enrolled in the 1st class in the 2008/2009 school year to obtain within one music school generation dropout percentage. Moreover, the number of available places in the 1st classes slightly varies yearly. From the available data we can conclude that the drop out is steep.

The presented existing research provides valuable insights into the interplay of internal and external factors contributing to dropout in instrumental music education worldwide. The research on youth sports activities provides further understanding. However, no available data illuminates the interplay of internal and external factors in a systematic music education system such as Slovenian. No similar research has been done in Slovenia. The following study fills the gap in understanding contributing factors leading to dropout in Slovenian music schools.

The main aim of this study is to explore the contributing factors for dropout and motivational decline of music students aged 7 to 15 in Slovenian music schools. To systematically investigate these factors, the following general research question was formed: What are the perceived factors contributing to dropout in Slovenian elementary music schools, according to dropout students, their parents, music instrument teachers, music theory teachers, and school principals?

The research was structured around five focus groups, consisting of (1) dropout music students who recently discontinued public music school, (2) the parents of these students, (3) instrument teachers, (4) music theory teachers, and (5) principals of elementary music school. A purposive sampling method (Patton, 1980) incorporating both quota sampling (which involves selecting participants to ensure the sample reflects certain characteristics of the broader population) based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria and snowball sampling (which involves existing study participants referring future participants from their network, useful in accessing hard-to-reach populations) techniques, facilitated the selection of the participants. This approach ensured a diverse sample, capturing a broad spectrum of perspectives on the issue of student dropout. Information regarding the socio-demographic composition of the sample, such as age, gender, and musical instrument of study, was collected via a structured questionnaire.

Students (N = 6)

Inclusion criteria: (i) aged between 7 and 14 years, (ii) dropped out of a public music school in the last 2 years.

Exclusion criteria: lack of parental consent.

Parents (N = 6)

Inclusion criteria: parents of the children included in the study.

Instrument teachers (N = 6)

Inclusion criteria: (i) instrument teacher at a public music school, (ii) at least 1 year of experience in teaching an instrument at a public music school.

Exclusion criteria: (i) only one teacher per music school could be included, (i) only one teacher of the same instrument could be included in the focus group.

Music theory teachers (N = 6)

Inclusion criteria: music theory teacher at a public music school, at least 1 year of experience in teaching music theory at a public music school.

Exclusion criteria: only one music theory teacher per music school could be included.

Principals (N = 5)

Inclusion criteria: principal of a public music school.

The study included participants with diverse characteristics, including different gender, age, and, for students and instrument teachers, the variety of instruments played.

Data collection was conducted in compliance with ethical standards, including the Helsinki Declaration and the Personal Data Protection Act. The research received ethical approval from the University of Maribor’s Faculty of Arts Ethics Committee. Participation was voluntary, with participants being free to withdraw at any point, and informed consent was obtained through signed forms. To ensure anonymity, all identifiable information was removed from the data. Participants were assigned pseudonyms in all research documentation and analysis. Identifiable information, such as names or specific locations, was omitted or generalized in the transcription process.

The data analysis was conducted using a structured qualitative content analysis approach. Initially, audio recordings were transcribed, organized, and coded to identify statements pertinent to the research problem. An initial list of 52 codes was generated, reflecting a diverse range of responses related to the research question. Through a systematic process of refinement involving multiple rounds of analysis and discussion among the research team, these codes were examined for conceptual similarity and thematic relevance. This iterative process led to consolidating the initial codes into 9 distinct themes. A combination of inductive and deductive coding strategies was used. Theme identification was a two-step process: first, an open coding phase where themes were identified based on the data itself, and second, a reflective phase where these themes were considered in relation to prior theoretical constructs. The analysis was conducted in Atlas.ti and NVivo. The primary analyst conducted the coding and theme development, with periodic consultations with co-authors to validate the coding scheme and the interpretation of themes.

External factors focus on elements outside the student’s immediate control, including teaching approaches, the social environment, curriculum content, resource availability, and overall workload.

The interpretation of external factors related to dropout from music schools in our sample reveals that the teaching approach, including the quality of teacher-parent and teacher-student relationships, significantly impacts student retention. Inadequate teacher-parent relationships can lead to misunderstandings or a lack of support for the student’s musical journey, as a teacher indicated: “Knowing to raise musical kids having no musical instrument at home.” This underscores the importance of a supportive network extending beyond the classroom. Adverse teacher-student relationships and insufficient student-centered teaching were also mentioned, highlighting the need for teachers to connect with students individually. One parent explained his view on his daughter’s dropout from music school: “Looking at my daughter when she stopped piano lessons after the third grade, it was mainly the relationship between the individual teacher and her that was to blame.”

Similarly, the social environment within schools is crucial, as a parent’s remark, “There was no socializing, so she found it boring,” reflects the need for a more engaging and interactive learning atmosphere, with the classroom dynamic crucial for maintaining student interest. The limited social interaction and opportunities, exacerbated by remote learning, challenge student engagement and enjoyment. One parent mentioned the lack of concerts as one of the factors for dropping out of music school: “There were no concerts during the quarantine. There was no socializing.”

Additionally, the music school’s curriculum can serve as a deterrent if it does not align with students’ interests or engage them creatively. An unappealing musical repertoire and overemphasizing musical literacy, such as music theory and solfège, rather than performance and creativity, can dampen enthusiasm. An instrument teacher highlighted musical theory and solfeggio as an important factor for dropping out of music education: “My pupils have a thing against it. When moving from sixth to seventh grade, many would continue to learn a musical instrument, but they do not want to learn solfeggio anymore.” A music teacher commented, “Repertoire should be different, not just a part of the music to be played [..] of course, is sort of compulsory.” Such feedback suggests that a one-size-fits-all curriculum may not adequately serve students’ diverse needs and interests.

Resource limitations, particularly financial constraints and lack of instrument access, also emerge as significant barriers. Teachers observe the difficulty in “raising musical kids having no musical instrument at home,” emphasizing the need for accessible resources for students to practice and improve.

Furthermore, the workload from the music school and general education demands can overwhelm students, as indicated by a teacher who notes the burden of “music education [..] and they do have a lot at school.” The compounded pressures of academic and musical assessments and an excessive repertoire load may lead to stress and disengagement among students. One of the instrument teachers emphasized: “There are lots of activities. Apart from primary school, music school is not the only activity in the afternoons, but there is one sport, another sport, there is a club, there are foreign languages, there is computing, there are class activities. It is exhausting, and then one thing has to fall away. Typically, this is the music school, which requires significant effort and time.”