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.
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.
Marshall,
ReplyDeleteAs always, a thoughtful and provoking post. I appreciate your connection between the reality of the US in terms of music preparation and the training (or lack of) students across the world receive. In Brasil, music education ONLY happens in the private schools. Any kind of music training or activity is extra-curricular. Many of these schools are based off of the US model of a liberal arts education (which is based off of the Greek model). Much like the US, music in other cultures is a part of custom and entertainment. I believe that the reason why we experience such difficulty in the States with arts and arts advocacy is because our general population has a difficult time "seeing" the role music education plays in our schools. The only tangible assessment made is during a performance (which is unfortunate). They don't realize that building musical skill in children will lead to a lifetime of understanding and enjoyment, regardless of aficionado, amateur, or professional status.
Here is how I view the role of the standards in our music curriculum:
We have elements of music: tempo, dynamics, melody, harmony, timbre, texture. The national standards is the VEHICLE for which these elements are taught. They also happen to be tied to higher-levels of thinking and mastery (look at Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory and Benjamin Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognitive Process). http://www.kidcyber.com.au/Bloomgard.htm
These standards meets the needs of differentiated learners while building on the skill and mastery of the musician. It has always struck me as silly that Elliot focuses on the practicing, and Reimer focuses on listening---because one cannot exist without the other. They are all a part of the whole. What we need to return to are the ELEMENTS of music and how to incorporate them into our music curriculum through standards. It gives us a more solid foundation from which to build our program.
Marshall--on a side note--
I am so very impressed with the growth you have made since finishing your bachelor's. Well done and congratulations.
Dr. H.