Week 4

How has the development of curriculum shaped the ways in which music education is viewed in the United States? What does curriculum development have to do with advocacy efforts?

I think I'm correct when I say that both Reimer and Elliott believe that current music education curricula center on performance, and not in the best way. Reimer states, "Whatever the approach taken, the major underlying philosophical value for the enterprise was to cultivate active musicianship, construed primarily as the ability to perform" (245). Respectively, Elliott makes a plea to avoid "production-based" programs, trying to avoid narrow curricula that aren't giving students everything they could have. I totally agree with them. I found this fact from Reimer to be truly eye-opening: "In most cultures in the world some degree of general education in music is offered, ranging from insignificant to significant. Few offer specialized music instruction as part of the school day by teachers who are prepared specifically to offer it. That achievement has been most strikingly attained by schools in America, where one aspect-performance-has managed to become ubiquitous at upper elementary, middle and junior high school, and high school levels, taught by music educators who have majored in choral or instrumental (band or orchestra) specializations" (276).

If you are aware of the emphasis on performance in music education then it's easy to "step out" and look at how music education is viewed in the US, which directly ties into curriculum development and its relation to advocacy efforts. If performance is your central aspect, what is the goal? The goal would be a high-quality performance at a concert, festival, or contest. Any place that has an audience. Unfortunately there is a common belief that performances reflect the quality of teaching and education. This, however, is false, and both Reimer and Elliott believe this too. Music is too multidimensional to put all of our eggs in one basket. Performance is a key element, but not the only one worth fully pursuing and developing. Reimer says that, "the central point to be made in regard to the performance program is that it cannot and should not be made to bear the burden of primary responsibility for teaching all the standards. That is an important reason for widening the scope of musical electives" (282).

How does curriculum development relate to advocacy? I was subconsciously aware of this, but reading Elliott's thoughts on curriculum brought them to the surface. He points out that a lot of music is selected based on school events. Is that true or what? Pep rallies, sporting events, public events, etc. dominate a lot of what music teachers program for teaching. Elliott does not consider this all bad, but he makes a good point. "...after all, making music for others is what musical practitioners actually do, and the aims of music education and the development of student musicianship can benefit significantly by connecting the curriculum-as-practicum with the wider school community and the musical needs of the community-at-large. At the same time, however, the musical requirements of people and events outside the practicum are usually too narrow and self-serving to function as guidelines for the musical and educational needs of music students" (277). I feel that focusing on performing puts you in the hands of your audience. If your performance groups don't sound amazing, it doesn't matter how awesome your music theory or music history class is. Because performing means so much in the "grand scheme," very few people will be advocates for a poor-sounding department. Because music programs are at risk, it only makes sense that teachers are willing to "dance like a monkey" to please those that currently or potentially may support them.

We've shot ourselves in the foot by relying on performance as a way to build advocacy, but that can change. I believe Reimer when he says, "Good teaching, supported by good school leaders, remains a key factor-no doubt the key factor-in successful education... But teachers hold the fate of any curriculum in their powerful hands. As is fitting" (243). By reevaluating and making adjustments to our curriculum we can shape our music programs into something better. Better for our students and better for us. I am extremely happy that Reimer and Elliot (although the process is different) feel the same way about expanding the curriculum to incorporate all the multifaceted nature of music. As far as maintaining advocacy goes, "what we do to make ourselves more relevant to our culture's musical needs will procure concomitant support, support we long for but often on our own too self-serving terms. A more broadly based music education, philosophically, musically, and educationally, can only strengthen our often precarious position in the schools, our wider contribution warranting wider appreciation" (Reimer, 297).

Music is an active process; I agree with this. There will be, of course, performing opportunities to various degrees, but I feel that we can do more for students by shifting the curriculum to include more of the standards. That's why they are called standards. If we can create a better balance, not only will students have greater opportunities to learn, but there will be a little less pressure on us (which I welcome with open arms). I know that Elliott suggests more practice-based ways and that Reimer suggests a lot of listening, but I don't think either view on curriculum would be bad choices. In fact, working with either would be better than doing the same thing, staying in the comfort zone of performance. A lot to think about, yes, but thoughts that need to occur in order to get yourself, and your students, to the next level.

Week 3

What are the challenges schools face when developing a district-wide curriculum? Share some of your experiences/insecurities with a curriculum development/implementation.

The main problem I think of when it comes to developing a district-wide curriculum is lack of consistency. Not only do they often end up being inconsistent, but there is usually a preexisting heterogeneity among the schools that kills the process before it starts. This is amplified exponentially by the number of schools in the district, larger districts having more diversity than smaller ones. This diversity can be due to several elements such as ethnicity, socioeconomic statuses, quality of educators/administrators, taxes, resources, location, population, etc. If a district-wide curriculum is to be implemented, contextual factors must be addressed to ensure an effective and appropriate curriculum will be developed.

If a curriculum is going to implemented district-wide, several features must be leveled out before that happens. Resources are a huge part of that process. If each school does not have (or have access to) the resources needed to carry out the curriculum, they are doomed. Teacher education is another concern. Some teachers may be comfortable with the new curriculum because they understand it or have been doing something similar while others may be uncomfortable because it is new or complex. Appropriate training and educating must take place to make sure all schools can confidently use the curriculum.

I don't think district-wide curricula are the worst ideas in education, but I also think that they are not always gone about in the best way. I would push for a district-wide curriculum to be flexible, able to adapt to the contexts in which it's placed. They should outline expectations of content, but allow the teacher to devise the best curriculum schedule to fit in their classroom. I think districts can and should have expectations of educational outcomes, but at the same time I don't believe in scripted classrooms. Districts should trust the educators they hired to implement curriculum in the best possible way.

Although I've only been teaching for two years, I'm already in the process of developing/revamping the curriculum for the music department at my school. My school goes through a rotation where each department evaluates, assesses, and makes changes to their curriculum every eight years. At first I though that was strange, because eight years sounds too long. I now know that these periods of curriculum development deal with major changes to curriculum (i.e., removing/adding courses, textbook changes, etc.) that require a large period for data-gathering/analysis. We are (fortunately)  allowed/encouraged to evaluate, assess, and adapt our teaching to meet the needs of our students.

I enjoy working in a private school because there are not large-district curricula being forced upon us. We can truly develop our curricula based on the contexts in which we teach. At the same time, I wouldn't mind having a curriculum given to me that has been developed by master teachers/administrators in similar educational conditions. The best that I can hope for is an appropriate curriculum that I develop through my experience and learning or one that has been developed with my particular situation in mind

Week 2

Compare/Contrast Elliot and Reimer's views from the above reading selections; Which philosophy can you relate to most, and why?

Although we are not far into either books at this point, the authors have made it clear that their philosophies differ significantly. For Reimer, his beliefs constitute the philosophy of "music education as aesthetic education," which is often shortened to MEAE. Elliot names his the "praxial" philosophy of music education.

I noticed a few similarities between Reimer's and Elliot's thoughts right away. First, I easily caught on to the idea that music is multidimensional. They both recognize that music is set apart by its use of sound, but they also see that the musical experience is more than that. Music incorporates performing, improvising, composing, arranging, conducting, listening, etc. They also feel that music is culturally grounded and that it serves social functions. In addition, both authors believe that everyone should make music to experience it appropriately and that enriching musical experiences should be made available to everyone.

Interestingly enough, the last two similarities listed above were discussed as contradictions in the books. Elliot calls Reimer's views too "narrow," yet Reimer clearly states that, "Music is too complex, too inclusive, too multifaceted, to be entirely dependent on just on of its dimensions, necessary as each of its dimensions might be." I will say, though, that Elliot goes into much more detail (at least, at this point in the book) as he points out the different dimensions of music and how they interact. In the area of promoting the spread of music education to everyone, both authors have different ideas. Reimer wants all students to have a listening-based general music experience and offer elective performance-based musical experiences. Elliot wants all students to have performance-based musical experiences. Either way, they want all students to have music, but they don't quite agree on what and how.

There is a huge rift between the "process" and the "product" of music. Both acknowledge that music goes through a process and a product is created through that work, but they disagree on where the focus should lie within music education. For Elliot, he thinks that there should be less focus on "masterpieces" and more focus on the process that created it. He wants students making music. Reimer also wants students making music, but he also wants students to experience music by listening to it so they can have aesthetic experiences that are intrinsically rewarding. He thinks this can be done by teaching students about the contexts in which music is written.

What I've noticed the most, so far, is that Reimer (although he has specific focus) wants to incorporate everything with his synergistic approach to music education. It seems that Elliot is not aware of this as he makes claims in his book that don't necessarily reflect what I'm reading in the Reimer text. I hope this starts to clear up as we progress though them. That being said, I can relate to Reimer's philosophy the most. I think this is because I share his idea that extremism, while clear and leaving no room for interpretation, is dangerous because it causes people to choose sides, preventing collaboration and middle ground to be established. I like the idea that differing philosophies have to share some beliefs and that avoiding the "either, or" standpoint can cause progress to be made. I also believe in the power of music and what it does aesthetically, although I don't think that should be its be all, end all. We'll see what happens in the following chapters as more ideas unfold.

Introduction

"Introduce yourself!  Give the class an overview of your professional life (your duties, responsibilities, educational background, etc.)."

Hello.
My name is Marshall Keough and I currently teach all the music courses at Roncalli Catholic High School in Omaha, Nebraska. This fall will be my 3rd year out of school, as well as my 3rd year teaching at Roncalli. I teach both instrumental and vocal music classes including: chorus, women's chorus, band, guitar, piano, and music theory. Outside of the school day I give private lessons, teach a madrigal and chamber ensemble, and direct the annual musical. Although my student obligations are abundant, I am also on the accreditation team, school improvement committee, and student assistance team.
I graduated from Wayne State College with a BS in Music Education for K-12 Vocal/Instrumental Music. While at Wayne State I was able to participate in a variety of ensembles, as well as take thoroughly meaningful and beneficial courses that helped me prepare for teaching. The time I spent studying and the time I've spent teaching has shaped me into an open-minded person/educator/musician/learner. Although I have my own personal ideas about education, I am always willing to learn something new in hope that I can improve myself as an educator. Society is always changing and the children we teach now are drastically different from when I was in school. Technology, family values, laws, and societal ideals/expectations are just a few things that are different from what I remember. Despite these changes, I still feel music is an important part of education and I don't think that will ever change.
I'm looking forward to this class and hope that I learn a lot.
~M