The Future of What We Do

It seems to me that music education, like everything else, is an evolving entity. We might be a bit slower in our evolution, but there is no doubt that we have and are changing. In this country, our emphasis has gone from rote learning and song books to the incorporation of Orff/Kodaly/Dalcroze methods, to the advent of instrumental music in the schools. As I and many others have asked, “Is this the end of the line?” In other words, do we want to continue to perpetuate the same type of education in music that has been going on for the past 50 years? Obviously we cannot. Yet new and veteran teachers alike seem to be more interested in keeping up the vocational-type education that is prevalent in most every school that I am familiar with.

Is this the best way for us to grow our discipline while trying to find and solidify its place in the school curriculum? As several people on this blog have discussed, many people (and I might say most) go into music education for the wrong reasons. Perhaps herein lies the problem. Shouldn’t music teachers be more interested in effectively reaching their students than the mode in which they are reached? Maybe instrumental ensembles are becoming obsolete in schools. I don’t think they are, but even of they were, we would still be ill-equipped to continue music education as a discipline.

As always, I do not have a definitive solution. However, music is music and I believe we as teachers need to not place value judgments on what that means. Our students come to us as blank slates and we should be filling those slates with valuable information, yes, but always allowing that blank slate to find its place in the vast chalkboard of music.

A Hint of Optimism

I know. From my writing so far it may seem rare to look at the bright side of things. This is actually not the case at all. I wouldn’t be working as hard as I do if I didn’t think that we music educators were making a difference. So, I thought I would take a break from the professional critiques to highlight a few things that I observe which are positives in music education.

New teachers are becoming independent thinkers. This seems to be much more prevalent in today’s music education student than it was just twelve short years ago when I began my undergraduate career. Back then it seemed that everyone wanted to be the best conductor of the best ensemble that ever existed in a school. We idolized those who attained these goals, and shunned the teachers who seemed to try and break this mold. The more I work with young teachers, the more I believe that they are sincere in goals for music education – not just for producing students who play really well, etc. We should never lose sight of the successes that we all have. In tumultuous economic times, everyone suffers…music programs especially. But it is good to know that there are those out there who will continue to demonstrate the vitality and urgency of keeping music in the education system.

Can/Should We Truly Implement the National Standards for Music Education?

I know most of us are beaten over the head with MENC’s National Standards so much that we would really rather not even think about them after we are asked to recite them in our sleep. So why do we learn them? Why do we even have them? Many teachers will tell you that the standards are too idealistic and do little for the situations that schools face. Others will say that they are too general and give no specific instruction for implementation. To me, these seem like excuses rather than valid arguments.

The National Standards for Music Education were not meant to dictate everything that can and should be done in the context of a music classroom, nor were they intended as a script that music teachers to follow. “OK, kids, today MENC says I have to teach you about music in relation to the arts and disciplines outside the arts.” They were intended, I believe, to serve as the backdrop for your curriculum. They outline the main points of teaching well-rounded musicianship and give students the tools necessary to truly interact with, and not just play, music.

I believe most ensemble classroom teachers struggle with the standards. This is mainly due to the rehearsal checklist techniques that are forced into our minds from the beginning of our lives as musicians. We play music, and if some thing is bad, we fix it. When you think about your musical experiences from the past, you may come to the same conclusion as I did; that music was not something that I did, it was something that was done to me. Check that note, your rhythm is wrong, the articulation is unclear, etc. Most teachers do not deviate from this level of instruction. I think the National Standards can help us get beyond this level of instruction by providing an outline for teachers to be creative in their planning, and allow for students to be actively engaged in creative music learning. I have attached an article that I wrote with some specific suggestions for this. The article is unpublished, but that will hopefully change soon.

The final point of consideration is how to spread the use of the standards to all schools. Even if everyone were to agree that the standards were a great guideline, how do we ensure that they are being implemented effectively? My thought is to have students keep portfolios of their work, including ensemble concerts. Maybe not immediately, but eventually the performance product would be very high. These materials should be presented to anyone and everyone; parents at open house, administrators at a school board meeting, and to colleagues at professional conferences. If more forward-thinking teachers begin to model for others (bad teaching strategy, but its the only way to get things done in music education it seems), we may actually see more elements of creative music learning make their way into all aspects of our schools’ music curricula. Enjoy this piece, and feel free to comment on the strategies for implementation, or as always, anything else that you’d like.

Standards-Based Instruction Article

What makes a great teacher?

We’ve all had really great teachers as well as some really…not so great ones. What is the difference? Is it subject knowledge, a general compassion for students, classroom manner, or some intangible that is more difficult to describe?

In music education, there are a plethora of subject-savvy teachers who are ultimately forced into submission because of an inability (real or perceived) to connect with students, or fail to find the musical satisfaction that they sought when entering the profession. A wiser man than myself once said that once you get the job, expect your responsibilities to be about fifteen percent music and eighty-five percent “other stuff”. I think it is safe to say that we are rarely well-prepared for this aspect of our job. We get into music education because we love music and we want to share that with students; not to fill out paperwork, go to meetings, etc. So the question remains, how do we improve upon our current retention rate of approximately one in five new teachers making it beyond their first five years? Do we need to, or is this just the sort of natural selection that goes on in any profession? My guess is that many great would-be teachers have been a part of the four that choose a different path.

I guess I’m wondering if we can still use the traditional benchmarks to evaluate good teaching. It seems to me that the best teachers have their own unique standard; one which no one else can be compared to. After all, becoming your own brand of teacher is a long process. It requires years of personal reflection and criticism. Maybe this kind of process is not possible in today’s society where instant gratification reigns supreme. But I would like to think (and, really, I know it to be true) that the next wave of greatness is out there. We just need time to find ourselves.

Music Education Advocacy

I have done quite a bit of reading on music education advocacy. Here are some highlights of what exists in the literature. In addition, I have attached an advocacy statement of my own that is very much in a state of flux.

Despite all kinds of research that proves otherwise, many people still insist on using the “music makes you smarter” rationale. Either that or music provides some great benefit that no other subject can. This is not necessarily true. Besides, using music in an adversarial context to other subjects is not the kind of advocacy that promotes our cause. Instead, what teachers can and should focus on is that music and the fine arts are the vehicle for cultivating creativity in the school. Now, most programs don’t do enough of this. So in order to use this rationale, you must make sure that the curriculum actually encourages music as a creative art and not just a re-creative one (see product vs. process blog post and read my advocacy statement).

Many times you will hear of teachers complain that their school is focused on athletics, or even some curricular subject that causes the music program to suffer in terms of support. In many of these cases, however, I think the teachers need to consider whether or not they have done a thorough job in articulating the benefits of fine arts and music education to their administration and parents. It is important to be pro-active instead of waiting for something bad to happen and being forced to defend your philosophy and your program.

Lastly, it is my opinion that the vast majority of schools treat music as an activity rather than a subject and an art. In doing so, the result may very well be some nice performances and perhaps some very visible awards. From the students’ perspective, though, little to no meaningful music learning is actually going on and there is no opportunity to be creative within music making. The one aspect of music that can set it apart from other subjects and provide the necessary rationale for support in schools is the one aspect that we mind the least.

I think change is very possible, and that is does not have to be night and day. Gradual change can allow us to find the balance between our long tradition of performance and a new emphasis on musical creativity. Teachers must be at the front of this change if it is actually to happen. Music education advocacy becomes exponentially easier once we provide a valuable outcome for our society. I believe this lies somewhere between offering our traditional performance opportunities and a curriculum that is grounded in student-centered musical creativity. Ensemble classes would start to look a little more like general music classes and vice versa.

advocacy-statement2-reviewed

Product vs. Process

I recently participated in an orchestral conducting workshop. It was a really great experience where I was able to conduct some very talented musicians. And the music…unbelievable music. I chose Dvorak’s 8th Symphony and Beethoven’s 5th Symphony. Anyway, this experience brought the entire product vs. process debate to the front of my mind again.

Mainly I suppose my concern lies in the balance of product and performance. For most music lovers (I include myself), there are few things in life that can compare to a great concert of well-crafted music. And I truly believe we as music educators want our students to share in this experience. A student studies an instrument because they want to play well and attain that high level of proficiency. I would say, however, that we have become infatuated with the performance in middle and secondary schools to the point that we have lost sight of the process. Is teaching broad musical concepts that we deem necessary in the rehearsal of a certain piece with the hope that it will transfer to another piece really the best way to approach music in the schools? Does this truly address the needs of the average music student?

I would contend that product has little to do with a student being a complete musician. Even if we do a great job of teaching a wide variety of music and relate it to its place in history, the end result is a measure of performance and I’m not convinced that is what our goal truly is. Isn’t great performance supposed to be a benefit of general musicianship skills, or are we content to only teach students how to perform a wide variety of repertoire? I am convinced that performance is a powerful experience, but does it warrant such a major place that we all but completely ignore the numerous other outcomes of a music education?

About (addendum)

I would very much appreciate any and all comments related to my posts. Meaningful conversation is what leads us toward greater understanding, and that’s the whole point….right?

What I learned…

Many people ask me, “So what did you learn in graduate school?” I find this to be an interesting question…mainly because I think that the people that have asked it expect some list of knowledge to come flowing out. Many who ask that question are colleagues who may or may not have attended what I consider to be a “vocational” graduate school. By that, I mean that they wanted a less than rigorous means toward improving their careers, and found a school that offered them the opportunity to do so within a curriculum that was essentially an elevated version of their undergraduate degrees. I must be honest, there were a few classes that I took that made me feel this way. But for the most part, these classes were easily in the minority. I don’t mean to criticize anyone’s choice to advance themselves professionally, but to do so without having ideas related to the outcome; or to do so without growing your own philosophy of music education is inexcusable.

Therein lies the point where I can say I have grown the most as a music educator. It’s hard for me to comment on how I’ve grown as a teacher in the past two years, because the teacher I am now, and the teacher I was then are two different people. I would consider myself somewhat well-read now in terms of research. Many people do not see the value in research, but these people are those who, in general, have not read or done a lot of research.

I am not, however, going to say that simply reading publications is the key to professional growth. Rather, it is the ability to implement the knowledge gained from the research into practice. Some may choose to do this within the context of the classroom, and some may choose to write about it. It all boils down to having a sound philosophy, and putting it into action; all the while remaining flexible enough to realize that your beliefs and philosophies will change. So, for those who are new to the profession (and I include myself in this directive), do your reading, write a lot, and be open to a lot of change.

Catching up

So, I haven’t written anything on this blog for some time. Being as how I don’t think anyone reads it, I’ll assume that very few, if any, are disappointed. So it goes. In the time since my last post, I have accepted a teaching position for the fall in Lake Forest, finished my master’s degree in music education, and toured the lovely scenery in Costa Rica. I suppose I have been enjoying my post-graduation time…perhaps a bit too much. Perhaps not.

Anyhow, let’s bring it back to the purpose of what I’m doing here: making a difference in music teaching. I was having a conversation with someone recently regarding the Super-State Concert Band Festival held here at the University of Illinois, where bands from around the state submit recordings and are selected to come and perform at our outstanding facility. For many schools, this is the pinnacle of achievement for their music program. This year, after the “honor band” was selected (best band in each class), I read an article in the newspaper from that area drawing a comparison to winning a state championship in sports. Now, our conversation centered around this idea of “winning” at a music festival. My colleague argued that this competitive activity was a necessity for a lot of schools in order to gain support for their programs. Any administrator loves to see trophies added to their school’s collection, and are more willing to support the programs that achieve this. While I cannot argue with this, as I believe it to be an irrefutable fact, I cannot help but point out how ridiculous this phenomenon is in education.

This, in my opinion, has created a culture of obsession with high stakes, high quality products that are demanded at a very young age. It is analogous to the current demands put on schools by the No Child Left Behind Act. There is a certain standard that must be met in order to receive support. The problem (with NCLB and music education evaluation standards) is that both are quite arbitrary. Performance at a competition is about as valid at measuring a student’s music education as a standardized test is at measuring how well a school educates its population.

It should be known that I believe contests and festivals to be legitimate sources of motivation for student achievement in performance. But I also believe there should be a much larger scope for measuring success related to our school music programs. Any school that “wins” at these activities should be complimented for having an outstanding standard for performance, but I would hope that students, in addition to the performance opportunities, have the chance to be creative in music as well.

More on this topic and others to come.

Reviewing the music curriculum

This is a critical essay from my master’s curriculum class with Gary McPherson. It outlines my beliefs on the need for improved curricula in the United States’ music education system. This essay was based on several articles that outlined the curricula from various countries (UK, Australia, China, US, etc.).

curriculum-essay2.doc