A Pressing Issue in Music Education: How Comprehensive Are We?
The future of music education holds definite uncertainty. Changes in technology, school structure, and culture seem to portend a shift in how music educators design school secondary music programs. As these changes loom, the time is right to reflect on how truly comprehensive our programs are and can be. In this time of flux, how will music educators design comprehensive school music programs that are progressive and forward-thinking while acknowledging and valuing the past?
Past Roots of Comprehensive Music Education Past initiatives in music education led the profession to its
current stance on comprehensive music offerings, especially in the secondary ensemble context. Sindberg (2009) notes how
20th century programs like the Young Composers Project, Contemporary Music Project, Yale Seminar, Tanglewood Symposium, and Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project contributed to a movement toward comprehensive musicianship. The “Seminar on Comprehensive Musicianship—The Foundation for College Education in Music” at Northwestern University in 1965, an outgrowth of the Contemporary Music Project, is credited with first usage of the term “comprehensive musicianship” (Sindberg, 2009). The program with the most notoriety today is likely the Comprehensive Musicianship through Performance project, sponsored by the Wisconsin Center for Music Education. Sindberg notes how these programs redefined the
purpose of school music by emphasizing “understanding the elements of music; the interdisciplinary study of theory, history, and performance; the involvement of students in musicianly roles such as performer, composer, conductor, listener, and analyst; and the practice of ensemble classes that function as both learning laboratories and rehearsal settings” (p. 28). These developments since the 1950s have significantly altered curricula and classroom priorities, opening up school music programs to a variety of new musics (Mark & Gary, 2007). One has to I wonder, though, about the extent of these
changes. Can school music offerings really be considered “comprehensive” in light of all the music that is valued in American culture? Are school music offerings staying relevant to students?
Current Need for More Comprehensive Offerings Even considering the progress made toward
comprehensive musicianship during the 20th century, music education must still confront troubling issues regarding the trajectory of school music programs. One alarming trend is that the profession does not seem to be engaging more students in the study of music in schools and may indeed be engaging less. Kratus (2007) points out the recent studies that showed large decreases in school music enrollment even during times
Ryan Shaw
of overall school enrollment growth (Music for All, 2004; Coalition for Music Education in Canada, 2005). Similar declines are also occurring in some states between age groups. For example, participation in Wisconsin school music programs declined 73% between grades 6 and 12 (Music for All, 2008). Is it possible that declines have something to do with
the nature of school music offerings? Without targeted research, asserting causes and correlations is problematic. However, missing out on large amounts of students raises serious questions. As Younker and Hickey (2007) note: “What about those 60-75% of the high and middle school students who do not participate in performance-based programs? We do not interact with them, nor hear what they think constitutes music and music-making” (p. 222-223). Reimer (2007) similarly notes that performance-only offerings are “of interest to only a small part of the school and general populations, despite our desperate efforts to advocate it as the be-all and end-all of everyone’s musical choices” (p. 57). Numerous authors have noted that music educators may be ignoring a large number of students who are avid music listeners, who perform in a garage band, or who demonstrate musicality through technology (Green, 2002; Younker & Hickey, 2007). The nature of current secondary courses raises other
concerns about how comprehensive students’ musical experiences may be. Ensembles that lack defined curriculum and focus solely on performance-specific repertoire have presented long-standing concerns (Mark & Gary, 2007). Some narrowly-focused performance ensembles frustrated early comprehensive musicianship advocates who compared them to context-less typing technique classes (Sindberg, 2009). Concerns also abound about the relatability of the music and the approach in such courses. Cavicchi (2009) points out that there seems to be a serious bifurcation between “everyday musicality and institutionalized musicality” (p. 100). It is also worth asking how many of the national
standards are addressed in traditional secondary performance courses, as it is entirely possible for some ensemble students to learn very little except music performance skills. Band, choir, and orchestra teachers often show some level of discomfort with engaging students in improvisation, composition, and responding to music. In these traditional secondary courses, there may also be little deference to the national standards in music education aside from those that focus on performance or perhaps evaluation. Younker and Hickey (2007) offer the example of a middle school band director who responds to a question about the national standards: “I don’t have time. We are a performance organization, and our number one goal is to get these kids performing. I don’t think they are bad,’ he continues, ‘it’s just that they are not part of our program philosophy here.’” (p. 219).
33
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40