It is imperative that we begin to


contemplate how we utilize the word “urban” in music education. Several years ago, the special education community initiated a movement to shift the use of words used to identify and label exceptional students. Labels such as “the deaf boy” or “the quadriplegic girl” were intended to identify and classify exceptional children for special services, however, many educators believed the use of such labels actually stigmatized students and inadvertently denied them certain opportunities in the mainstream (Adamek & Darrow, 2010). Now, “person-first”, label-free approaches, such as the “boy with a hearing impairment” and the “girl with a physical disability,” are now used in effort to reduce viewing students through a deficit lens and to preserve the dignity and enhance the humanistic quality of students (Adamek & Darrow, 2010). Transfer to Music Education: Similar to


the special education movement, I propose that music education reframes the use of the word “urban” from a deficit perspective where students are stigmatized and denied opportunities to a more dignity-preserving one. Currently, “urban” stigmatizes students who attend these schools for their education. By incorporating more person-first, label-free language, such as “students who attend an urban school,” the label “urban” will merely defer to the geographic location of the school, instead of inappropriately characterizing students that attend schools in urban areas. Also, by shifting to person-first language, our approach to urban music education would broaden and expand to empower our students in urban school rather than disenfranchise them as “hopelessly poor urban individuals.” In the mid 1800’s, Horace Mann


worked to reform the public schools of Massachusetts. In essence, he believed that education was a form of social justice and would serve as an “equalizing” opportunity for the poor (Labuta & Smith, 1997). He established six principles of public school education, which at the time were controversial: (1) citizens cannot maintain both ignorance and freedom; (2) education should be paid for, controlled, and maintained by the public; (3) education should be provided in schools that embrace children from varying backgrounds; (4) education must be nonsectarian; (5) education must be taught using tenets of a free society; and (6) education must be provided by well-trained, professional teachers. Mann believed education would


propel poor people out of poverty and enable ala breve


them to compete on more equal footing with the educated and financially upper socioeconomic class population—ultimately, “balancing the wheel of the social machinery” (Labuta & Smtih, 1997). Unfortunately, rather than serving as the “great equalizer” and usher of humanity as Mann envisioned, urban schools in the United States s continue to be incubators where patterns of inequity are establish, maintained, perpetuated and reproduced (Noguera, 2003). In conclusion, I have witnessed


many successes in urban music education around the country; twenty years ago, I was the beginning of my success story. If we begin to work to bring the pieces together—quality teachers, connecting to students music experiences, broaden access to music education, to name a few—I believe we will have even more success stories in urban music education. However, among the challenges that urban schools encounter, the greatest challenge is shattering the stigma of “just being urban.” What would happen in urban education if we began to view urban schools as places full of “smart, talented and beautiful students?”


References


Adamek, M.A., & Darrow, A. A. (2010) Music in special education (2nd


ed). Silver


Spring, MD: American Music Therapy Association.


Cochran-Smith, C. (2004). Stayers, leavers, lovers, and dreamers: Insights about teacher retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 387-392. Council of the Great City Schools (2013). Council of the Great City Schools: The nation’s voice for urban education. Washington, D.C.: Council of the Great City Schools.


Elfers, A. M., Plecki, M. L., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Teacher mobility: Looking more closely at “the movers” within a state system. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(3), 94-127.


Frank, D. (2003). Analysts challenge assumptions about teacher shortage. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 13, 1-16.


Haberman Foundation, Inc. (2009). Room 26 [Documentary Film]. United States: The Haberman Foundation.


Hancock, C. (2009). National estimates of retention, migration, and attrition: A multiyear comparison of music and non-music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 92-107.


Haycock, K. (1998) Good teacher matters: How 41


Nicole R. Robinsonis a Professor of Music Education and the Beverley Taylor Sorenson Presidential Endowed Chair for Elementary Music Education at the University of Utah.


well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Washington, DC: The Educational Trust.


Howard, T. C. (2003). Who received the short end of the shortage? Implications of the U.S. teacher shortage on urban schools. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18, 142-160.


Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. A National Research Consortium.


Institute of Education Science (2012), An examination of performance-based teacher evaluation system in five states. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/ regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2012129.pdf


Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35, 3-12.


Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.


Labuta, J. & Smith, D. (1997).Music education: Historical contexts and perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishing.


Peske, H. & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching Inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality. A report and recommendation by the education trust. Washington, DC: Education Trust. United State Census Bureau (2014). 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/geo/ reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html.


United States Department of Education (2004). No child left behind: A toolkit for teachers. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.


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  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44