What is music education "good for"?

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.

It's not about me!

I recently read: ""No Excuses" and the Culture of Shame: The Miseducation of Our Nation's Children" by Paul L. Thomas, Ed.D.  In short, this article talks about foundational ideas of some (I purposely write "some," as certainly this is not "all) charter schools, innovative schools, and programs like "Teach for America." Funding for said programs is highly dependent on test scores, and student behavior/decorum is of the utmost importance. Thomas continues by discussing the "Missionary Zeal"--teachers who enter the profession to "change the world" or to "save students." As he states it, the teacher becomes "bad ass," essentially fighting off the evils that are public education. The "bad ass" teacher authority is unquestioned and is THE MOST IMPORTANT factor in a child's education. For example, remember that movie "The Ron Clark Story," based on the Ron Clark's time in Harlem (albeit a short time)? There was a scene where he became ill....but he pushed ahead and went to school anyway. He later collapsed in front of his class...turns out he had pneumonia. Later the movie shows him recording lessons from his kitchen that a substitute could later play. The learning continues and it is dependent on one "agent of change."

Being the best teacher you can be is certainly an admirable thing and on the surface programs and schools, as those mentioned above, are providing good services to their communities. I'm not questioning that--but, I DO question the reliance the education system as a whole places on the "teacher"--particularly in music education (right--this blog IS about music education). How were many of us trained? We were trained as conductors. We spent hours upon hours practicing gestures that would effectively translate our ideas and emotions to our singers or instrumentalists. The buck stops with US. Additionally, there was this sense of getting every thing "perfect" and if it wasn't perfect--we failed. If we are to teach students to perform at the highest level possible, then we ourselves must perform at the highest level. I was trained to be, and became, a "bad ass" music conductor. Because I worked this hard....dammit I deserve respect--students should bow to me when I enter the room (this is sarcasm BTW).

Fast forward to teaching 4th and 5th grade children (of the 21st century), and BANG--they don't listen!  Why is it when I try to engage my older students in singing or dancing, they do so with mediocre effort at best? But, when I put them in small groups or pose an individual challenge, why do I observe high levels of enjoyment, engagement, and effort? I have a group of students that loves to dance. I tried to introduce "The Twist" to them in chorus (we're singing a popular dance tune arrangement that includes this song), and a few kids joined in--most did not. But, if I simply put on the music and stepped back--they'd probably all just groove to it naturally. My "bad ass" training must be faulty. I'm a popular teacher with the younger kids--does my "bad-ass-ness" simply wear off? Is there a store to purchase more? Or.....that's it--it needs to be renewed every 5-7 years. Seriously though...Is it me? Do my students not want to engage in "my" music or worse yet is it that my students do not like me? The answer is NO.

When reading the above article, I reflected on my teaching practice and gained insight into the above issues. The music education profession in general, and I specifically, tends to focus too much (or exclusively) on the "teacher" and the "teaching"--heavily grounded in classical/romantic era music and musical practices. Large group...ensemble based...conductor driven. Students essentially become puppets to the teacher, spitting out perfectly sung songs and pieces. But, where is the learning in that? A teacher, albeit "bad ass" can only go SO far. I must not rely on myself as a teacher to engage students (plus I run out of good jokes), I must shift my focus away from me and place it on designing truly engaging, authentic experiences. I must empower each student to make music education his or her own and to find personal meaning and engagement.

I don't want my students to dependent on me! It's not about me--it's about them. I have to step back and let them construct their own learning. I need to be the guide and provide scaffolding for their learning--but, they must do it for themselves.