Musically Educated Adults

I recently went to a workshop on curriculum development and the clinician posed the question: "What is a musically educated adult?" This video would be my answer.

http://www.wimp.com/pumpcastnews/

It's JUST Elementary School

I hear this a lot, as well. "Don't worry....it's JUST elementary school." In a way, I can understand where this is coming from: young children aren't capable of producing the same technical level of music that high schoolers are, however, elementary students are certainly as capable (if not more) of meeting their potential to succeed. 

I believe in giving the upmost to the youngest children. And, I expect them to do their very best musicking in a developmentally appropriate way (although it's important to remember that this doesn't always happen). As referenced in the previous post, I don't rely on the "cuteness factor" of kids...I expect excellent effort and achievement from the students, and I hope my programs can be evaluated on genuine music making. 

Again, this is a major issue for the music education profession where...by and large...the "glory" jobs are the high school positions. Elementary teachersare often forgotten about. 

That's SO CUTE!

I hear this a lot after programs: "The kids were so cute." This, frankly, is offensive. Although I understand kids are naturally cute, I work to educate children musically--this is my focus. My place in the school is not the provider of "cute" programs for parents, or "fun" assemblies for the school as a whole. My job is certainly not to provide a time for kids to kick back and relax--a release period.

Whenever I'm getting bogged down with administrative tasks, or having trouble getting something going, I'm often reminded by folks, "It's about the kids--focus on the kids and you'll be able to muscle through the unpleasant stuff." Yet, many of these same people quickly talk about how "cute" the kids were after we present a program. If it were about the "kids," I would hear comments about their learning, their efforts, their accomplishments, and their progress. Discussing "cuteness" is about the adults.

I think this issue also falls back on us music educators. When we are programing music, are we really planning for the kids? Or...is it serve some personal or community need?

Common Core

Check out this article:
http://dianeravitch.net/2013/02/26/why-i-cannot-support-the-common-core-standards/


I particularly like this quotation by Diane Ravich.:

"I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation.

The Common Core standards have been adopted in 46 states and the District of Columbia without any field test. They are being imposed on the children of this nation despite the fact that no one has any idea how they will affect students, teachers, or schools. We are a nation of guinea pigs, almost all trying an unknown new program at the same time.

Maybe the standards will be great. Maybe they will be a disaster. Maybe they will improve achievement. Maybe they will widen the achievement gaps between haves and have-nots. Maybe they will cause the children who now struggle to give up altogether. Would the Federal Drug Administration approve the use of a drug with no trials, no concern for possible harm or unintended consequences?"

Teacher Musician

I enjoy reading about Deborah Meier's work in reforming public school education. Her approach is polar opposite to what current politicians, including our president, support. Her basic premise is to create small schools where children and adults work together to form educational, democratic communities. Students are allowed significant freedom and autonomy in their education. They often have choice over what they study and how they go about studying it.

With 500 children trampling through my room each week, it's hard to conceptualize how this approach could work in my setting. Not to mention that "music education" is so greatly tied with large ensembles. Individual musical efforts, or desires, are often ignored in our schools. This is a big topic--and not really the point of this particular post. 

My major thought when I read the above quote, was how can this apply to "music" and "music education." Meier writes: "Powerful thinking should be going on by the adults who keep company with the kids." Applied to music education: "Powerful music making should be going on by the adults who keep company with the kids." I don't mean performance...and I don't mean modeling music....I mean embodying the life of a musician. Students need to see that I'm a musician. I'm modeling, in part, that musical learning and growth is a lifelong investment. 

What is the purpose of music education? It's a part of the total education of a person...so that a person can live a personally meaningful life--a life in which active music making can play a role. Does active music making play a role in MY life? Of course, it does. It's important for my students to see and experience that, as well. 

Questions of Equity

Recently when asked why we use recorders in music class as opposed to guitars or other instruments, I answered: "Well...it's about equity. It's an instrument that everybody can afford and learn to play with relative ease. Also, we know every child has "equal access" to the instrument and curriculum."

The more I think about this, the more I disagree with my own answer. Despite practical or logistical "equity," is it really equitable to force all children to use the same instrument? In an effort to provide "equal access," are we in turn stifling some our students' musical desires?

Why Elementary School?

I frequently hear the following questions:

"Wouldn't you enjoy teaching older students? "
"Wouldn't it be nice to work with kids that choose to be there?"
"Have you ever considered moving up to high school?"
"Do you not have the skill set to teach high school? Is that why you work with little kids?"

First, let me state I chose elementary school. I was quite successful student teaching in secondary music and have been successful over many years working with adults in a church setting. Actually, in many ways, I would probably be a more successful secondary teacher than I am elementary....and there are many times that I question my choice. Teaching at the elementary level is difficult if you are concerned about real education. The amount of instruction time is almost comical, and despite so little time, it is the first place other educators looking to make up for their lost time. There are unreasonable expectations, e.g. after chorus concerts at least half the comments are negative (not loud enough, too many kids looked bored, not enough popular music). One little thing, the custodian trying to fix the heater, a bee flying around the room, or child who's just having a bad day, can derail an entire lesson. One lesson, remember, is all I get in a week. Finally, it's heartbreaking the frequency with which I say NOOOOOO. "Can we stay at recess and work on our recorder?" No...sorry I have another class. "Can we stay a few minutes longer to finish our composition?" No...sorry you need to go to math class. "Can we add different instruments to this?" No sorry...I don't have enough to spread around. "Can I come tomorrow morning?" No...sorry I teach at another school that day.

Despite these challenges (I name only a few), I chose elementary school for two primary reasons: potential and equity.

Potential
There is no greater potential for musical learning than elementary school. Many would argue this is the same for all learning, and probably the most crucial grade of all is kindergarten--Why don't we have our Ph.D.'d educators working in kindergarten? There is this terrible, horrible, no good (get the reference?) misconception that it's easy or not as demanding to teach young children. Or, that it's "cute" to teach young kids (that comment makes my blood boil...sorry!). However, young children (specifically in music before age 9) have the greatest potential for learning and discovery. We need our best educators at this level.

Equity
Deborah Meier offers one of my favorite descriptions of why music (the arts) should be a part of a child's education: "The arts are fundamental to children's education. Art is fundamental to the human being. The primary reason we need arts programs in schools is because humans are artists." Humans are artists...look at the way young children incorporate music into their lives...spontaneous singing, dancing with abandonment at any chance they get. Somehow this is beaten out of them and we perpetuate dangerous and untrue rumors that music is for a "talented few." BTW...I can't stand when people say my son/daughter just....doesn't have it. I believe music is for all and all children have the opportunity to learn music in elementary school. High school programs, although the "glory jobs," typically only serve 10% of the school population. I'm not sure that is equitable music education.


Why general music? 
I get "wouldn't you love to teach band?"...or, recently when talking about my teaching, I stated I wasn't all that passionate about teaching chorus. I got a shocked response. "Then what ARE you passionate about?" I said general music. Don't get me wrong--band and chorus are great. Actually, if it weren't for my high school choral experience, I wouldn't be a music teacher today, and--I wouldn't be the person I am today. However, that is MY story...I was a part of the "10%" so to speak...what about the others?

I happen to specialize in music, however, I care about the education of children...education of the whole person. Band and chorus, etc, are specialties that "generally musical" people can choose. They're a means to make music but are in no way the "ends." I don't want to train specialists, I want to help develop a foundation of a truly educated person.

That's why I choose elementarily.