The MayDay Group began in 1993 as a result of the desire of its founders to critically examine music education practice and to create dialogue about it. In February 1997, seventeen members of the organization met and developed the Action for Change in Music Education document (see website). This document outlined seven ideals that the signatories believed were (are) essential to music education practice. This fall, the book “Music Education for Changing Times; Guiding Visions for Practice” was published. It contains a series of essays by prominent philosophical thinkers in the MayDay Group who speak to the issues outlined in the original Action for Change document. The editors of the book, Thomas Regelski and Terry Gates suggest in the preface and introduction that music education has been slow to change with the times. The book is a public acknowledgment beyond MayDay meetings to the world at large, of the need to initiate a dialogue bringing new ideas, perspectives and suggestions for improving music education.
Question: As a former, recent, or current teacher in P-12 education, do you think music education has been slow to change with the times and in what ways? Why? (Click on the title above to respond.)
I think we can all agree that music education needs change. I think most of us can also agree that music education has been slow to change with the times. I am lucky enough to be teaching in a very progressive school in MA with an incredibly supportive administration. I have felt very comfortable implementing social justice practices into my classroom. However, in consideration of budget cuts for next year, the first thing the superintendents office wanted to know is how many students have participated in state-wide music festivals. It always comes down to numbers. These festivals, although beneficial in many ways, are not inclusive to all students. They encourage interacting with music in a very traditional way, and do not recognize students who may not. A vocal student who may have been raised singing gospel music would score low in any traditional audition. In this way, music education has not come very far and there is much work to be done!
I am a high school band director in a NYC public school, where I teach beginning instrumental music, Intermediate Band, Concert Band, and Jazz Band. I feel that the biggest change needed in our particular system is greater continuity in our curriculum throughout the different grade levels and neighborhood school districts. Granted, I realize the near impossibility of implementing such a fantsasy, but I find this to be the greatest obstacle to overcome in building my school’s performance programs.
For several years now, the NYC DOE has been pushing a document that they swear is not a curriculum called the Blueprint for Education in the Arts. It is a curriculum. It is a fabulous one, too, outling excellent pedagogical progressions from Pre-K through 12th grade that would undoubtedly produce fine, thoughtful, capable musicians. The problem is that without this document being implemented continuously from an early age it becomes irrelevant to older students. The material it suggests for the 12th grade “benchmarks” are impossible for students with no prior music education to achieve, while the earlier benchmarks are developmentally inappropriate for more mature students.
In the school where I teach I would estimate that over 50 percent of the students have been in the U.S. for under 5 years, many do not speak English well, and those who have been in NYC’s public school system since kindergarten (before the Blueprint existed) were not exposed to it, and have just come from a middle school system where music is not a required course in this city! Of the 10 or so middle schools that feed our high school, maybe 1 or 2 have instrumental music programs. As a result, I see no way to follow the curriculum outlined in the Blueprint as it applies to the grade level of my students. Instead I rely on my knowledge of music, instrumental pedagogy, my students, and their learning styles to modify existing methods books (another topic for complaints altogether), repertoire and other source materials.
Given the incredibly diverse backgrounds of the students in a typical NYC high school, their background in education, music education, English proficiency, time spent in NYC public education, I don’t know how to address the issue of continuity in music education before entering high school. I believe the Blueprint was an honest attempt, but how can it be implemented when half my students lived in another country during the time this document says they should have been learning the concept of “tempo” and listening to “Hall of the Mountain King,” playing recorder and learning to read notes in fourth grade, or contrasting dynamics and texture in eighth grade of a local middle school with no music program. However, if I am going to judge this hopeful vehicle for change (ironic that it is also a vehicle for uniformity) fairly, I believe I will have to wait until students who were kindergarteners at its inception reach my classes.
And we’re back to that big buzzword of 2009: “change”.
Before we can address whether or not music education needs to change (and why!—my personal buzzword), we have to first establish the parameters by which we want to measure change. After all, change must be made in comparison to something else. If speaking about fundamental change, we need to ask about the fundamentals: what is music education? what is its goal? why is music education? Until we can answer these and similar questions, we cannot ask about where it’s going and why.
My “why” in music education is simple: the students. Thus, the answer for me as to the how and why is brutally obvious. Any change made should be focused on the students. Change is already happening on the ‘front lines’, and it happens every hour of every school day. My circumstances certainly lead me to this conclusion—this is my first year teaching in a rural district where, barring last year’s one-year interlopers, the music teachers had been here for 20+ years. Things have been very set in stone. And change is HARD (a comment several of my students have made). But the daily workings with a musical group or an individual are all about change. Sure, they’re minor changes, but it’s a constant process. We listen, we critique, we play and model; the student responds, repeats, asks questions, thinks. There are verbal and nonverbal cues we pick up on and therefore adjust our teaching approaches; likewise, the student picks up on our cues. You want something to make the principals happy? Music class is unique in a school for a reason relating to another buzzword of today’s education field: assessment (in performance classes, it’s instant). It’s in substance too. Performance teachers drawing from a constantly updated catalog of repertoire, teachers making references to newly released movies and music. Your keyboard student 30 years ago wouldn’t be learning Alicia Keys’ “If I Ain’t Got You.” The change is everywhere! Teaching music is a fluid process, a ‘responsive classroom’ if ever there was one.
The lag in “change” is most clearly seen in the institutions, and this is not a call for change in substance but change in communication and research. The institutions are the people you question not because of their vast resumes but because of the huge gap between their last P-12 teaching job and now. And yet these are the ones training the new generation to step into the classroom. Thank God for student teaching and observation experiences, otherwise our new trainees might have a more jaded view than they already do (yes, I’m a first-year teacher). The institutions need to be aware of where the change is occurring and how. And yes, the change is going on now! How many choral teachers have been inspired (or dissuaded!) by the TV show “Glee?” I can tell you many of my students have brought the idea up to me. What does this mean on the larger scale? I can’t say for sure, but the large scale doesn’t necessarily tell me what to do—teaching is location-specific. If, say, 200 teachers start glee clubs, perhaps we can make connections and draw theories about the relationship of classrooms, students, and teachers and stimuli in popular culture. But what of the teachers who suddenly find themselves in front of a glee club with no idea what to do? They’ll know the theories behind the relationship of popular culture and classroom, but what about the how-to? Should we consider adding a glee club practicum to the course catalog?
The last poster spoke of music education as a rut you get stuck in, and perhaps it is. But my point is this. Forget the “eggheads” in their marble higher-education palaces; forget the tenure-fanatics who suddenly lose all motivation when they get to the top tier; forget the principal and the superintendent who may or may not support you but certainly aren’t in your classroom every day. It’s not about them, and it never has been. It’s about the students, those people you have the privilege to encounter and engage with in musical pursuits. And it’s about changing lives, not just musically but fundamentally. Working in groups, setting goals, exploring new information, physical conditioning, practice and preparation—this is music! This isn’t just the why; this is the who, what, where, and how, too. So if we start asking ourselves about change in music education, this is where we need to look to start exploring the answers.
I definitely feel that music in higher education needs to change. (In performance and music education programs) Despite the high level of playing ability performance-oriented programs result in, there are NO jobs for graduates. The patrons and venues for these performance jobs are dwindling.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E1DD1331F931A25751C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
Discussions on the limitations of the master-apprentice model is being held on a global scale with discourse from Australia (i.e., Bennett, 2005; Carey, 2004; Liertz, 2007; Schaupp, 1997), England (i.e., Gaunt, 2006, 2007; Green, 2002; Hunter, 1999; Koopman, Smit et al., 2007, Lansky, 2001), Finland (i.e., Djupsjobacka as cited in Kuusisaari, 2007), and the Netherlands (i.e., Bjornavold, 2002; Mak, 2004; Mak, Kors, & Renshaw, 2007; Renshaw, 2004, 2006; Smilde, 2004, 2006).
Music education programs in higher education are also not necessarily giving graduates the skills that are desired in schools today. While a former ‘band’ or ‘orchestra’ student enters college hoping to duplicate the experiences they had as a high school or college student, they may be asked to teach guitar, music production, or other technology-oriented course. I, myself, played the violin in high school and college. Unfortunately, my violin now has a special place in the closet. I don’t have an orchestra at my disposal. Fortunately, I play the piano (on occasion), which does not require ensemble participation. While I value the experiences I had, I must admit that my time may have been better spent on skills that would have led to LIFETIME music participation. Perhaps guitar?
I have a few theories as to why relevance is a key issue in music consumption in general. Composers, performers, and musicians of the ‘ancient’ past had skills in which they also wrote, arranged, and transcribed music. They didn’t merely aurally decode written scores. Music had a chance to evolve. Unfortunately we are now merely preserving the traditions of the past. I don’t know about most of you, but I know that most of my music skills feel very contrived and ‘textbook.’ I know music theory and could pass a written test, but I would not be able to sit down and improvise a tune I heard on the radio. I can sight-read anything and memorize a piece of music within a few weeks, but that doesn’t really make me a musician. It makes me a glorified record player.
On the other hand, I fear what would happen if education tried to take ‘modern’ and ‘relevant’ music and make it appropriate for school…
I would like to propose 2 different criteria for considering what to teach in school.
1. That which will lead to lifelong participation
2. That which could actually lead to making money
The first criterion could result in many changes. Perhaps the focus on ensembles would necessarily have to change. Certainly the genres of music would not be solely limited to the ‘great works.’ Perhaps the extremely high standard of playing or even difficulty may have to be adjusted. In addition, the highest level of playing ability is not often “maintaineable’ in later life. I’m barely 30 and do not have the back muscles to sit for 6 hours a day. My friend plays in a community orchestra in which the horn players have had mouth cancer or simply do not have the muscles to maintain their emboture.
The second ideal may result in the largest change in music education. (A shift away from performance) It takes dozens of people to take a performer from the practice room to the stage or recording studio. (producers, songwriters, arrangers, publishers, etc…) I had an opportunity years ago to teach a music theory course in a recordings arts program. Most of the students had limited music (performance) experience and wanted to be P.Diddy. While most of these students may have been taking on a substantial amount of debt to get into the music business, I thought it was very interesting to see the difference in curricula. The only reason music theory and keyboarding was required in the curricula was to be accredited by whatever agency the for-profit institution used. The desired outcome for attending this school was to make a VIABLE living in music.
I don’t know about any of you, but I hope to actually get a job after I finish this degree. My prospects do not look very good. I will most likely be offered barely enough to pay my student loans and would be required to relocate my family. I will spent my life either churning out performances or doing research. (for the sole purpose of adding a line to my C.V.) I will have to attend conferences and conventions (mostly at my own expense until I make tenure). Everything I write will be for an audience of higher-education “eggheads” who will do nothing with it except for pick it apart like vultures. Anything I learn in my ‘research’ will never research my intended audience. (Because it is expected to be written in a high-brow language in which they do not understand or wish to read.) I will spend my life churning out graduates (cogs in the wheel) into a world where their skills and education may not be needed or valued.
(Was it the Chronicle of Higher Education that just sent out an article saying 60% of Ph.D. graduates WILL NOT find a job in higher education?)
At this point, higher education, seems like a ‘racket’ to me. There is no guarantee that the people assigned to guide you into the world spent time in any kind of industry besides higher education. If you are lucky to land a position among these intellectuals, you are expected to maintain the status quo. (Occasionally, you will ‘pour old wine into new bottles,’ but ‘rocking the boat’ generally doesn’t go over well with the elders.) Another problem with higher education is the tenure process. You spend years busting your tail to get tenure (doing research or performing……….not necessarily improving your teaching skills.) After you make tenure, there is NO incentive for maintaining (or improving) your teaching skills. Often, the highest paid professors do the least amount of teaching. (Most of their work load is spent on administration, research, performance, or advising, etc…) Pedagogy is often the least examined skill in higher education. Nevertheless, the tenure process is yet another barrier to CHANGE in higher education. (certainly music education)
Please excuse my rant… As you can see, I think about this a lot. (As my student loans pile up and job prospects look grimmer and grimmer……..as I realize there is less about my education and ‘former music life’ that I can talk about with my spouse, parents, or friends because my focus has been so narrow and esoteric…….I could go on and on….)
George,
I concur with your observations. Much of the music instruction in P-12 classrooms is based on a teacher centered model. It is interesting to note that this model is in stark contrast to contemporary theories of learning. Constructionism, humanism, and cooperative learning are approaches that are neglected in many music classrooms. It is no surprise then that some music teachers are experiencing declining enrollment and increasing misbehavior. The students of today are different from the students of 100 years ago and need to be approached with different learning strategies and techniques. Student-centered teaching models have been found to be successful in other areas, why not music?
Two additional issues come to mind. They are: relevance, and technology. Many students do not find the music making activities offered in school related to their music experiences outside of school. Every generation has probably experienced this clash between academic and popular culture, but I think the increased use of music technology is fueling a change greater than just differences in musical style. Technology is changing our entire music experience.
I would like to offer one approach to addressing this problem. It is folly to think that the entire profession will change overnight. I believe that we need to establish “laboratory schools” where forward thinking educators can experiment with new ideas in learning and music making. These schools will then establish precedents that others may choose to follow. Afterall, Lowell Mason introduced music education into one Boston school, and schools across the country followed his lead. We are looking for an example on which to model our future successes.
I am fascinated with the history of curriculum and instruction in the P-12 large ensemble and instrumental music setting. I also marvel at how little it has changed over the past 100 years. We have employed new technologies and become more efficient at what we do, but the core of what we do has changed very little. Many ensemble and small-group instrumental lesson teachers continue to “direct” in a very teacher-centered manner, one where there is little room for student decision-making. Students are taught instrument-manipulation and ensemble skills very well (usually), but musical decision-making is left to the adult in the room.
One important line of research for better understanding the lack of change in C&I is the life cycle and lived life of the school teacher. I have recently read several music education philosophers calling for various types of change, change that I absolutely think should occur. Most of them accurately state that every teaching situation is site-specific. They go on to say that individual teachers need to take their desire for change and create new curricula and manners of delivery/teaching to implement change. They make an important, unstated assumption. They assume teachers have the time and the inclination to make these changes on their own. We need to better understand what types of curriculum-creation can be expected of busy teachers. These are teachers with performance expectations (both internal and external), coworkers, and busy lives outside of their professional lives. Many (most?) already spread themselves very, very thin. Those who buy into the concept of change may or may not be able to find a way to act on that desire.
We need to better understand the teacher who is teaching. Change will only occur if this group of people deliver the change. In tandem with this we need to create example materials for this change. These materials need to be relatively easy to digest, easily flexible, and they need to be available at little or no cost. It appears to me that without stronger emphasis in these areas change will continue to progress at a glacial pace.
Background on my thoughts:
I am in my 13th year as a band teacher. I desire change and the more I analyze my teaching the more I am unhappy with it. I have what might be a typical teaching load for a middle school band teacher (?) and I have two young children at home. My teaching load does not allow for hardly any “plan” time at school and my family needs the few hours I have at home with them each day. The time demands in my life allow me approximately one hour per-day to spend as I wish (only by setting a 3:45 A.M. alarm). In the past that time has been spent creating materials to use in my teaching, but my efforts were in creating materials to be more efficient and allow for more on-task behaviors by my students, not in creating materials that allowed for fundamental change. Recently that time has been spent in reading as much as I can in preparation to start a music ed. PhD program. Perhaps I am simply inept, but I have not been able to break out of the mold I was shaped by. In many ways I continue to teach as I was taught, though now it really bothers me.