What is music education good for? If asked this question, I'd guess most people would mention "extra" musical benefits, such as improved test scores or improved math comprehension (don't even get me started on the mythical connection between math and music). The benefits to one's character, physical health, and spiritual well being were the primary reasons for adding compulsory music education in the Boston public schools in the mid-1800's (this marks the first compulsory music program in the country--yay Boston!). Some 150 years later, the National Association for Music Education largely advocates music education through it's supposed benefits to other subjects and other areas of life.
Most of the "research" people quote is not reliable, doesn't have a large enough scope, and isn't reproducible. Actually, many of these studies were financed by large instrument producers (is there a conflict of interest here?). There are also claims that students who have music do better on standardized tests. There is a relationship, but I'm not sure that the cause is music. A recent study produced a nation-wide demographic of high school music programs--the majority of students being affluent and white...which is a demographic that typically does better on standardized tests. We all know this...attend our All-State--almost every musician is white. Do they perform well on tests because they have music? Or, is it their particular demographic? Is it family or cultural influence? Given this, who is profiting from the "supposed" benefits of music education? Do they really need music class?
I never entertain this sort of discussion. When asked "why" music should be including in schools, I simply say: "Humans are musical. Just as humans can learn to read and think, they can learn to think and make music." Someone might say....well you're living in a cloud--no one is going to buy this sort of explanation...they need the hard facts. I think the issue is not in advocating for our programs, but truly making our programs vital to a school community. Music education should be comprehensive and personally meaningful to each student.
This topic came to mind this week, because I had several students come to my class late or miss it all together. They were late because they had to "do something else"...whether that be special services or finish homework. Now I fight "tooth and nail" against this...but it always seems to be that, me, the teacher who has the least amount of time with the kids is the first place they look to find "extra" time. I know it's not just me...I hear this from many of my music educator friends. It can make me so angry at times and I feel professionally and personally slighted (yes I said personally--music and thus music education is a highly personal thing to me). However, as I think about it...it really comes down to who is music education "good for." I think the profession as a whole has long promoted large ensembles (which typically reach 5-10% of the high school population at best) to the exclusion of all other programs. I think we still largely live here. I wonder what music education was like for the adults I work with. Were they "left behind" so to speak...the 90%? The same could be true for parents. If it wasn't "good" for them, then it's not necessarily "good" for students.
Enough bashing the profession...now it's my turn. I feel confident as a teacher, and I'm getting better each day...but I still have a long way to go to provide a truly empowering, transformative curriculum. When asked to skip music class, I want my students to say "Excuse me but it's MY music time." I want it to be that meaningful to each and every student. This is certainly a lofty ideal. However, if music education is to be "good for" each student, it must be meaningful and relevant to each student. I think this will go much further in terms of advocating than will toting misleading studies.
