A Philosophy of Music Education



A Prelude of Musical Thoughts

By Jennie Gould

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

~Einstein

America’s system of public education is becoming insane. All students are on the same educational path, as though each student had the same needs and wants. They all take the same classes, learn the same information, and are tested in the same ways. Yet, society has need of a variety of individuals; from janitors to CEO’s to teachers. How is public schooling providing the education students need by “doing the same thing over and over [to students] and expecting different results?” Education is failing students, but there is hope for a better future. If public schools are willing to leave behind standardization of student learning and accept education as a human experience, every student could become their own Einstein. Music education has the potential to be the maven for change in public schooling. Music has the ability to provide vital experiences that elicit a human education. A rise in human education would result in endless potential for students to succeed in their own element.

As I have worked and studied in the American public schools, I have noticed a great divide between the music that pervades the culture of the students and the music being taught in the classroom. This divide has led many school-based music programs to dwindle through a lack of funding and disinterest of students.

“The current system of education was designed and conceived and structure for a different age…It was conceived in the intellectual culture of the Enlightenment, and the economic circumstances of the Industrial Revolution…and running right through it was an intellectual model of the mind” (Robinson).

Influential educational figures argued that the economic circumstances of the industrial revolution would support universal education because of the increase of jobs in the workforce (Graves). Today, public schools are structured and function in a similar way to how they were first envisioned. Music programs continue to remain stagnant. Music education programs have not been reformed to fit our current economic and cultural environment. Music education is at its “tipping point,” and it is necessary for music educators to begin transforming their ways of teaching (Kratus). The survival of school music programs depends on our ability to see the possibilities it has for enhancing the lives of students through human experience.

What is music and how does this affect its purpose in schools? Thinking of music solely as a set of consciously composed sounds is “dehumanizing” to music (Jorgensen). Music is a powerful form of communication that expresses humanness in ways language cannot. Music uses sounds, composed by one or more persons to create a human experience. All aspects of life (i.e. Culture, economics, politics, family, love, school) interact with music. Public schools music programs have perpetuated a narrow view of music, by focusing highly on male-dominated, classical, ensemble music. If music is a human experience, then music-making would be the act of creating those human experiences. These experiences will be different for each student. Therefore, the narrow teaching strategy used today will not sustain our music education programs.

“Music [is] a human expression within the larger context of life. It is approached more as a humanity than a science, holistically rather than atomistically” (Jorgensen).

Student’s personal background, environment, and interests are very important to the classroom; just as important as the musical content. Music teachers and educational administrators need to recognize the need for valuable human experience as a vital part of education.

Teachers can structure their music programs to meet the needs of their students and society by providing good musical content and structure. The music taught in schools should exemplify who the students are, as well as challenge them to become greater musicians and human beings. Patricia Campbell, professor of music at the University of Washington, says that,

“It is the clever teacher who can convincingly balance students’ preferred styles and specialized training, with the need for them to know the wider spectrum of music’s possibilities, and who understands that a thorough musical education encompasses far more than the merely familiar styles. Opportunities for attentive listening, even a few minutes’ worth of class time once or twice weekly, can reveal to students rich musical perspectives that might otherwise remain a mystery to them” (Campbell 90).

Music teachers should begin music instruction with what the students know, and branch from this solid foundation into other realms of music. They should challenge their students to create meaningful experiences with music in ways that are important to them. School music programs should be applicable to all students, not just elitist, classically trained musicians. This does not mean that classical music is bad music, or should not be taught, but that music education should include more students by providing other forms of music making.

Structurally, music classrooms should be a reflection of real-world musical experience.

“Learning as it normally occurs is a function of the activity, context and culture in which it occurs. In other words it is situated. This contrasts with traditional classroom activities which involve knowledge, and which are often presented in an abstract form and out of context” (Mans 91).

I agree with Mans, that teachers should strive to make the classroom a more realistic environment for students. This may mean that teachers spend less time trying to contrive a musical experience out of context, such as contests or festivals, and spend more time exploring how music derives meaning from the context and human interaction involved in the experience. Music teachers can influence educational change by prioritizing student learning over societal and political demands of the school system.

Music education needs to expand beyond performance, composition, theory or history to encompass a variety of mediums in which music is utilized in our society, such as (but not exclusively) business, politics, literature, and religion. Instead of organizing music classes based on genre and instrument, music classes could be organized by function; practical v. aesthetic, or personal v. communal experiences. For example, instead of having three concert bands, a teacher could have one classical performing ensemble, one music business class, and one ethnomusicology class. Each class could explore music through composition, practice, evaluation, and historical/theoretical context. Music education is missing a vital link in today’s music world - the relationship between the musical experience and the behind-the-scenes-method by which this experience was created. Music students may learn how to perform music, but they do not learn how to market, produce and advertise their music? Outside of school, students are experiencing music through a variety of mediums that are not live performance - a TV commercial, a movie soundtrack, a music video, , the radio or in a hotel lobby. I was in a book store in late November, when the manager walked up to one of his employees and said, “you can turn the music back on now…oh, and turn on the Sound of Music – that always makes people buy more Christmas stuff.” A variety of musical tools could greatly aid the needs and interests of students. As Jorgensen puts it,

“Transforming music teaching needs to include the various societal institutions that are engaged in music education, be they family, religion, commerce, politics, or music profession. Reinventing music teaching with this reality in mind suggests preparing people who may later earn their livelihoods while doing the work of music education in such diverse worlds as business, engineering, entertainment, arts administration, music therapy, church music, studio instruction, music performance, government, social work, architecture, instrument design, and manufacture, mass media, community schools and colleges, clinical psychology, and geriatric services…[this] can provide opportunities for dialogue among people from fields that are now isolated from one another” (Jorgensen 132).

It is important that our students are able to use their music education for personal and communal interests, practical and aesthetic meanings. Music programs should provide students with a variety of music mediums that they could be successful in.

Along with providing students with practical music needs, music education should also provide aesthetic experiences. Aesthetic experiences can be discovered through a variety of music mediums and genres. There are a few different ways of looking at the aesthetics of music. One view might be that the music itself holds meaning, without the need for human interaction. Bennet Reimer states,

“There is no correspondence whatsoever between the beauty we find in the non-artistic world and the beauty we find in art, for the beauty in art is a separate kind…this means that the beautiful is not contingent upon nor in need of any subject introduced from without, but that it consists wholly of sounds artistically combined” (Reimer 41).

This view suggests that the human experience has little to do with the aesthetic nature of music. I would disagree with this statement. Jorgensen has a different view of the aesthetics of music,

“Rather than being funneled toward predetermined ends and prosaic methods, diversity can be encouraged and celebrated. Instead of teaching every young person to know and do certain musical things, music education can ensure that every young person experiences music in a ways that are relevant to, and meaningful in, her or his particular reality” (Jorgensen 128).

Music can serve the aesthetic needs of human experience. Music aesthetic content in the classroom should be a reflection of student experiences. The music itself does not contain one aesthetic identity, but many, depending on the human interaction with that music.

The current school system portrays teachers as authoritative or dictatorial knowledge holders.

“Tried-and true music education practices have become unmoored from education practices used in other disciplines. The teaching model most emulated in secondary ensembles is that of the autocratic, professional conductor of a large, classical ensemble. Is that the model of music making we want for our students?” (Kratus 45).

Students are portrayed as capsules that need to be filled with knowledge by teachers. This is a very systematic way of looking at the role of students and teachers, and is a handicap in education. Teachers do not hold all the answers. Students and teachers should be learning and growing on an equal plane. Students have been forced into thinking, by the current educational system, that there is only one solution to a problem, when in fact there are many. Teachers need to foster student creativity; they need to treat them as sources of knowledge, not as empty capsules that need to be filled. Students come to the classroom with an incredible source of creativity and ability to learn. Teachers can help students discover their creativity through music by encouraging critical thinking. The classroom should cease to be a place of revered silence and lecture, and become a place of discussion and experimentation. Jorgensen says,

“The teacher is anxious to enlarge learners’ horizons, to show them what is not readily accessible to them and how to approach disparate musics beyond those with which they have already identified. On the other hand, the student has much to contribute to the teacher’s understanding. Both are conversation partners, fellow travelers on the path to wisdom…each has an opportunity to learn from the other” (Jorgensen 122).

The classroom should be a place where student creativity and ingenuity thrives. In our society, facts can so easily be found with the click of a button, the role of a teacher as fact giver is meaningless. Teachers instead should provide students with the opportunity to interact in creative and thoughtful ways.

Another important aspect to teaching students is recognizing that all students learn differently. I disagree with Elliott when he says,

“All music students ought to be taught in the same essential way: as reflective musical practitioners…‘when performance is deprecated in favor of appreciation, it is doubtful that adolescents will gain the level of appreciation expected’” (Elliot).

Performance is not the only essential tool in teaching music. At South Peninsula High School in South Africa, theory and history (or appreciation) classes are taught separately from performance classes, so students lack the ability to have meaningful learning experiences since there is a divide between practice and theory. In U.S. schools, students in performing ensembles often lack the ability to explain or evaluate what music they are performing because they lack the theoretical understanding. Theory and practice need to go hand in hand when teaching music to students; neither is more important. Jorgensen says,

“Theoretically oriented music…courses at every level need to be permeated with applications to practice, just as practical experiences need to be imbued with opportunities for research and reflection” (Jorgensen).

I agree with Jorgensen that giving students the opportunity to apply theoretical and practical knowledge will enhance musical understanding. Some students will take more from a theoretical standpoint, especially students who may be visual learners. Others may learn from the performing experience if they are kinesthetic learners. A good music classroom provides students with theoretical and performing mediums for music-making.

In an age that is moving closer and closer to uniformity, standardization and sameness, students are losing their ability to see themselves as unique, creative thinkers. If society loses the ability to think outside the box of restrictive schooling, we won’t be able to progress.

“A living thing cannot be standardized. It cannot be reduced to formulaic approaches, procedures, or instructional methods…generative ideas have typically been reduced to narrow and restrictive interpretations that gradually lose their power…National standards, state curriculum guidelines, codified instructional methods, and the like, no matter how well intentioned, cannot bring music education alive” (Jorgensen 125).

Our society progresses through the discovery and implementation of brilliant ideas. National standards in music education make effective teaching almost impossible. Teachers no longer have the option to cater to specific student needs. The idea of one-size-fits-all education system does not work. There are many brilliant students who can’t function in the narrowly structure school environment that is provided. Students with mental disabilities or dreams other than college are a few examples of students who don’t fit the educational mold. There are many famous musicians, such as rap artists, who did not learn music through the public education system because it did not meet their needs. Our current music systems are not meant for everyone. Students are told that the only way for them to be successful is to fit into the one-size-fits-all mold, which alienates many brilliant students. The function of school music programs needs to change to allow students to access their own talents, whether that is saxophone performance or music critic. Many top educational foundations and administrators do not agree with this idea (at least in practice). In a recent Time magazine article in reaction to the movie Waiting for Superman, Amanda Ripley said,

“What matters more than anything else in the school is the teacher…Race to the top, is pushing school districts to raise academic standards, to evaluate teachers based in part on how much their students are learning…12 states have passed laws requiring student-progress data to be used in making teacher-evaluation decisions…35 states and the District of Columbia have agreed to adopt common standards for what kids should learn at every grade level” (Ripley 35).

While I do believe that the teacher is important to the education of students, I do not believe that you can judge the effectiveness of a teacher based on the results of standardized testing. Students are not a reflection of their teacher. Education should be encouraging the differences among students, not forcing them to bend to someone else’s ideals. I spent a few days in a high school VI (visually impaired) classroom. One girl, we will call her Anna, was completely blind, and had been since birth. She was talking to me about how she loved to compose and play the piano. As she explained her latest composition, she moved her fingers on her desk as though it were a piano and sang the correct pitches as she said them out-loud, giving me a verbal run-down of her genius. As she did this she smiled and laughed. She had greater musical passion than many musicians I have met, yet she does not fit the standardized mold and is not in the school music program. Will she be able to succeed in music? National expectations of students will make success for many musical genius’s very difficult to attain. Standardization is bred out of the need for competition. Competitiveness has caused public schooling, especially school music programs, to loose sight of student needs. Minette Mans says,

“The global cancer of competition, which has replaced the…principle of comparative staging and sharing of creativity and skill, injures as well as depraves the mind. Competition humiliates, generates false glory, breeds hostility, and the obsession to win instigates devilish practices” (Mans 53).

It would be beneficial for teachers and administrators to develop a mode of evaluation that did not require competition or standardization. Ideally, students could set their own standards of thinking and goals for improvement, eliminating the need for national or state standards. Student self-evaluation could be used as a musical and educational means of assessment. Music education can be the tool that starts this educational transformation. Music education has the ability to open up creative elements in students, allows them to make choices, use their creativity, and learn about their human nature, culture and identity.

Music educators can transform education through human experience. Public schooling should no longer continue on its path towards insanity. Music can be the maven of this transformative change that would open up endless opportunities for learning and growth of students. Music education is vital to the human experience.

Works Cited

Campbell, Patricia Shehan. Teaching Music Globally: Experiencing Music,

Expressing culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Elliott, David J. Music Matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1995.

Graves, Frank Pierrepont. A History of Education in Modern Times. New York: The

Macmillan Co., 1915.

Jorgensen, Estelle R. Transforming Music Education. Bloomington and Indianapolis:

Indiana University Press, 2003.

Kratus, John. Music Education at the Tipping Point. Music Educators Journal.

November, 2007.

Mans, Minette. Centering on African Practice in Musical Arts Education. African

Minds, 2006.

Reimer, Bennett. A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the vision. Upper

Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2004.

Ripley, Amanda. TIME: What Makes Our Schools Great. “How to Fix Our Schools.”

Vol. 176, No. 12. September, 2010.

Robinson, Ken. RSA: Changing Paradigms. Royal Society for encouragement of Arts,

Manufactures and Commerce. .

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download