Music education--should it be required?

[DavidW]

teachers who have trouble interacting with students, or behave inappropriately, need to be dealt with by parents and school administrators.  There's more to teaching than just imparting knowledge.

No the parents should have nothing to do with dealing with trouble teachers.  That is the administrator's jobs.  The parents have the right to report what they're children are telling them, but they don't have the right to interfere.  The thing is that (a) it's not their job, and (b) they always believe exaggerations and lies from their children.  Parents usually are not in the right place to judge these things, they are too emotionally involved.  However, administrators with experience and wisdom gained from it can usually see through the situation and be able to assess if something wrong is going on, or if it's a tall tale.

And so many times these situations started because a child gets upset about something and blows it out of proportional, you know they're not adults yet, and some of the smallest things can dramatically effect them, and it might not have anything to even do with class.  These issues can be difficult and sensitive and someone that will clearly be biased has no place as judge.

[Todd]

No the parents should have nothing to do with dealing with trouble teachers.

Well, now I completely disagree.  I've been through this situation, and I most certainly say that parents do have a right to "interfere" when teachers act inappropriately.  Contrary to your statement about parents not being in a place to judge these types of situations, sometimes they are in a far better position than teachers.  It's actually not that unusual in my experience.  In the specific case I had to deal with, the teacher in question already had a history of inappropriate, unprofessional behavior, and the administrators didn't deal with the situation effectively.  In fact, for a variety of reasons, the teacher just recently moved on, several years later, after many more complaints, and will now be in her third teaching position in a district in another state.  I've been around far too many teachers, as a student, a parent, and a relative, to defer to them or administrators as much as you do.  Teachers are not special in any way, and as such deserve no special consideration.

For instance, I recall one teacher mocking a child for a birth defect.  Is that appropriate?  I've seen another (several, actually) that treat children of parents who do not speak English well far worse than other students.  Is that appropriate?  Of course not.  Yet nothing was done.  That's shameful.

Also, your statement that parents "always believe exaggerations and lies from their children" indicates it is likely that you do not have children.  Most parents I know do not believe exaggerations and lies from their children, and can often easily detect them.  (Inconsistencies, shifts in emphasis, ever greater insistence, etc often give them away.)  Your statement smacks of arrogance I've noticed in other teachers.  In fact, it exemplifies why parents should keep a close watch on teachers and interfere when appropriate. 

[jochanaan]

Many schools in the west (and in America in particular) can't even instill enough discipline for the students to pay attention to the subjects that are already part of the curriculum. I don't see how making musical education compulsory (a fine a idea under other circumstances) is going to help a whole lot when the "kids" are more likely to worry about their next high or one night stand then receiving something of value to their lives, where as those few remaining kids who are still conscientious enough to benefit from this are probably too busy trying to survive in the prison-like dog eat dog atmosphere of modern schools without having to blow their brains out first and perhaps take some of their fellow students with them in the process. By all means though, keep pouring money into education so that the kids can have a cleaner and more modernized environment in which to sell drugs or copulate in.

There's good anecdotal evidence that music programs GIVE many students something to look forward to other than the next high or lay.

[secondwind]

There's good anecdotal evidence that music programs GIVE many students something to look forward to other than the next high or lay.

That's a good point, Jochanaan.  I was a "good student"--A's came easily and I didn't cause trouble--but I was like a fish out of water in high school, and if I hadn't had band and orchestra to look forward to every day, I doubt I would have graduated.  As it was, I graduated a year early just to get out of the environment and into the friendlier setting of college. I think being part of a music organization is a stabilizing influence on a lot of students. It certainly was for me.  The band/orchestra room was the only place in the school that I really felt at home.

[DavidRoss]

Hello?  Is anybody out there?

https://www.menc.org/information/advocate/facts.html

[secondwind]

Hello?  Is anybody out there?

https://www.menc.org/information/advocate/facts.html

Thanks for the link--there's some very interesting stuff there.  I especially liked a couple of the statements by Huckabee. Here's one:

I dream of a day when every child in America will have in his or her hand a musical instrument, be it a clarinet, a drumstick or a guitar. And I dream of a day when there's no state legislature that would even consider cutting funding for music and the arts because they realize that it's a life skill that changes the lives of students and gives them not only better academic capability, but it makes them better people. We sometimes forget that many of us in this room, including this guy standing right in front of you, would not be where he is today if not for having music introduced in my life because it gave me the understanding of teamwork, discipline and focus". Mike Huckabee, Former Arkansas Governor; NAMM University Breakfast Sessions 2007, NAMM Playback Magazine, Spring 2007, pg. 36; www.namm.com

[Grazioso]

Short answer: yes, it should be required.

Longer answer: In my time, I've seen a very disturbing trend in the US of turning all schools into glorified trade schools. There's nothing wrong with trade schools per se, but schools ostensibly geared towards general education should provide just that: a firm foundation in both the liberal arts and the sciences. A broad liberal education, which necessarily includes the art history and, ideally, practice, teaches skills, values, and knowledge that may not always be directly applicable to earning money, but are nevertheless important for creating broad-minded, historically aware, multi-talented individuals capable of critical thinking.

Learning to play an instrument, coupled with a study of theory and music history, teaches discipline, coordination, teamwork (when playing with others), and knowledge of historical economic and social changes, to name a few important skills. Taken together, those studies will tax one both mentally and physically while exposing students to high ideals and achievements: learning to listen to and appreciate Bach and Beethoven is good not merely for the mind, but for the soul. Students need to be shown things that aim beyond the quotidian and utilitarian.

(And I don't think music study should be limited to Western classical music, but it shouldn't in any way shortchange it, either.)

[karlhenning]

Well done, Grazioso.

[DavidRoss]

In my time, I've seen a very disturbing trend in the US of turning all schools into glorified trade schools.

Yes.  That's been my major complaint regarding "higher education" in America for the past 30 or more years (though the trend goes back to the post-war GI Bill, I believe).  It's been coupled with a fascinating process of transferring job-training costs from employers to prospective employees.  I suspect it has something to do with the unprecedented wave of immigration we've been enjoying the past few decades (see chart, below), increasing competition for jobs and assuring a large pool even of skilled and professional labor that keeps compensation costs low for employers (in inflation-adjusted real terms, I probably earned more as a college-stopout truck driver in the early '70s than I have in recent years managing new drug development projects for big pharma).

[Superhorn]

  We know now that kids who take up musical instruments in school and play in bands and orchestras,or sing in choruses, are far less likely to drop out of school and gravitate toward drugs and anti-social behavior.
  In addition, this helps their mental development and can improve their overall academic performance. So it's a pity that so many schools have dropped their music programs. So many professional musicians today in our orchestras and other groups have benefitted from studying music in school from an early age, and they might not be where they are today without these programs.
  It would also be great if more schools had music appreciation courses for kids and they could be introdiuced to classical music.
And this is less expensive than having bands and orchestras, which require schools to have instruments.
  But I think it might be better to start these programs in later grades,such as grades 10-12,where the kids may be a bit more intellectually sophisticated,and possibly more receptive to classical music. I myself studied music education in college,and was a substitute music teacher for many years at various Long Island public schools.
  But if these music appreciation courses are not well taught, it can turn kids off to classical music for life.
 

[jochanaan]

...  But I think it might be better to start these programs in later grades,such as grades 10-12,where the kids may be a bit more intellectually sophisticated,and possibly more receptive to classical music. I myself studied music education in college,and was a substitute music teacher for many years at various Long Island public schools...

*shakes head* The earlier the better, for musical basics.  Kindergarten is not too soon for music games.

[Anne]

*shakes head* The earlier the better, for musical basics.  Kindergarten is not too soon for music games.

I agree with jochanaan.

When my grandson was 8 yrs. old, I was teaching him about The Ring and he loved it - stomping around the house in response to the giants' motif every time he heard it etc.  (What did I do about incest?  Totally ignored it.  Time for that when he is older.)

With my second grandson who, by the way, was 4 yrs. old and had a full-blown case of ADHD, one afternoon on impulse I taught him the opera of Hansel und Gretel conducted by Solti.  When I started, I had no idea if he would sit that long.  I would explain whatever background he would need to understand the video, then play the video until it was time to stop the video and explain whatever was needed next.

For example, the aria "Brother, come and dance with me," at that point we got up and danced to the music.  We did that several times to get the  melody into his head and to just have fun with music.  Then we played that part of the video.  He was very relaxed and interested because he understood what was happening.  Throughout the entire video it was stop and explain or act out something, for example, children being nervous in the middle of the woods at night.  The angels, in the (IMHO) most gorgeous music of that entire opera, came and watched over them keeping them safe.  In summary, it took quite a while to go through the opera the first time, but he seemed interested so I kept going to the end.  I asked him if he liked it and he said, "Yes."

The following day he surprised me by asking if he could watch the video again.  I put it on and didn't say a word.  Would you believe this 4 yr old child with ADHD sat there not moving a muscle for the entire 2 hours of that opera?

I used the same method with the 8 yr-old and The Ring.  The key is going slowly the first time through the music.  If a good enough job is done initially, you have opened a whole new experience to them that they can watch, listen and enjoy by themselves.  They do not need the adult.

It is true that the adult needs to know something but not necessarily have a degree.

[Anne]

If adults who know and love the music can share that enjoyment, it would make the cost of bringing music to children a little cheaper.  As they (the children) get older, people with degrees would need to take over.  I have thought about this a lot.  If I ran the show, every daycare center would have someone to teach the enjoyment of the music.  Their little minds are wide open to new ideas.  We need to teach them classical music is fun before the world gets hold of them and tells them it's not cool.

[Dana]

*shakes head* The earlier the better, for musical basics.  Kindergarten is not too soon for music games.

     Why not both? Sure you can play games and teach kids how to clap rhythms back at you and hum along with their favorite songs at an early age (and I do agree, the earlier the better with this), but a basic understanding of the forms of the classical era (sonata, rondo, and theme & variations to start with) would be a HUGE advantage when listening to music going forward, even if you're not teaching them about pivot chords and what not. Not to mention a more advanced knowledge of reading music.

[secondwind]

Thanks Grazioso, DavidRoss, Superhorn, Jochanaan, Anne and Dana for your input.  You all raise interesting points.  I was especially taken by Anne's description of sharing opera with her young grandsons.  It brought to mind my first exposure to Prokofiev via an animated Peter and the Wolf--probably by Disney.  I can still remember the narrator's voice introducing the themes and the instruments that played them, and then came the magic of the music itself.  The idea that children should be exposed early to good music, to great music, certainly has a lot of merit.  Why would children want to learn to play musical instruments if they have never heard great instrumental music and thought "I really want to do that!"?  I like the idea of music education starting in daycare or preschool, in some form, and continuing throughout the K-12 years.  And because I don't think music education should be available only to the children of the wealthy and well-educated, I hope that somehow the public schools will continue their music programs and strengthen them.  Yes, Bulldog, if you're reading, I know it's not likely.   Perhaps more funding would be available if some studies were done in pilot schools to show an increase in school retention (fewer drop outs) when instrumental programs are introduced or enhanced.   

[DavidRoss]

Thanks Grazioso, DavidRoss, Superhorn, Jochanaan, Anne and Dana for your input.  You all raise interesting points.  I was especially taken by Anne's description of sharing opera with her young grandsons.  It brought to mind my first exposure to Prokofiev via an animated Peter and the Wolf--probably by Disney.  I can still remember the narrator's voice introducing the themes and the instruments that played them, and then came the magic of the music itself.  The idea that children should be exposed early to good music, to great music, certainly has a lot of merit.  Why would children want to learn to play musical instruments if they have never heard great instrumental music and thought "I really want to do that!"?  I like the idea of music education starting in daycare or preschool, in some form, and continuing throughout the K-12 years.  And because I don't think music education should be available only to the children of the wealthy and well-educated, I hope that somehow the public schools will continue their music programs and strengthen them.  Yes, Bulldog, if you're reading, I know it's not likely.   Perhaps more funding would be available if some studies were done in pilot schools to show an increase in school retention (fewer drop outs) when instrumental programs are introduced or enhanced.   

There are plenty of studies demonstrating that music education benefits students in every respect, including reduced dropout rates.  The problem is getting people to get over their stupid prejudices enough to examine the facts.  Even on this thread, with people presumably self-selected for interest in the subject, I've seen no responses to the issues addressed in the studies to which I linked.  They keep talking about the value of music qua music, and not of its value in every other respect--improving reasoning ability, math skills, communication skills, interpersonal skills, discipline, interest, self-esteem, and lower drop out rates.  Those are the benefits of music training that will convince educators and politicians of the benefits of music--not pie in the sky arguments about music appreciation enhancing a person's appreciation for the finer things.

[secondwind]

As music lovers, many of us probably believe that music should be taught for its own sake, regardless of other direct or indirect benefits in other areas.  However, if I ever decide to wade into the fray to lobby on behalf of music funding with the local school board or the state legislature or the federal Department of Education, I will certainly go armed with the type of information you refer to regarding the other benefits of music training.  First of all, I believe those studies showing all sorts of good outcomes from music study--my own experience and the experiences of my friends and acquaintances all bear them out as well.  But most of all, I know that those are the only arguments that have a chance of swaying the people with control of the purse strings--will this improve our graduation rate, our math test scores, decrease our discipline problems, etc.  They don't really much care whether kids develop a love of Mozart or Prokofiev or the ability to distinguish a major key from a minor key. 

[Dana]

      Sorry, but I'm still skeptical about the word mandatory, and here's why - to the best of my knowledge, music has never contributed anything to other fields of study, with the possible exception of literature. Let me explain myself...
      Every other field that's mandatory by the public school system teaches skills which not only can, but must be applied to other areas of life. Physical Education teaches us to take care of our bodies, which we need to be aware of in case we move, and need to lift heavy boxes, or something else of that nature. When you consider the Moon landing and nuclear physics, for example, they both had wide ranging implications that affected the way people live their daily lives. There's an inter-subject discourse where breakthroughs in one field lead to breakthroughs in our daily lives, like the technology boon that resulted from the push to land on the moon. And even when you're not talking about great breakthroughs, there are the little things; it's good to know what causes my allergies, and it's interesting to know that glaciers formed the gorges that I walk through in Central New York.
      And that's where music differs from what most people call the core academics. Consider the great milestones in music - The Eroica Symphony, Tristan und Isolde, and Symphonie Fantastique, to name a few. These fantastic and influential achievements led to... more music. Maybe they inspired some poetry and artwork as well. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Wagner's greatest musical achievement outside of composition was the Bayreuth Festspielhaus: a monument where his own musical works could be more perfectly realized. In this way, Wagner exemplifies all great composers, in that their highest achievement could be to promote their own music, as well as those contemporaries and predecessors which they admired (the exception is the nationalist movements). And that's all. The closest comparison to the core academics would be English literature, but no one in their right mind would argue that the ability to read and write at a critical level are absolutely essential to our existence as a high society (at any rate, no one should). Even literature is selective in how it teaches - I've never seen a class where Tolkien or Lewis were taught, though Lewis pondered serious philisophical dilemas in his writing, and Tolkein wrote some really fantastic prose!
      This isn't to say that music is worthless (I wouldn't be a practicing musician if I thought that). I think that a good musical education is invaluable, and encourages thinking in creative ways that other disciplines don't, and I think that everyone should be able to think in this way. It's also an important part of our historical and cultural lives (perhaps art and music history ought to make up a bigger part of the history curriculum). Living in a small town with really nothing going for it, most of the people who live here either work in the school system, or the wal-marts and Applebees of the world. While a musical education might bring a little more light into their lives, is it truly indispensible for these people?

[Grazioso]

Dana, points taken, but the drift of your argument goes back to what I was discussing: namely that we as a society take too much of a functional--or mercenary--view of education. Music may lack the broad-ranging practicality and interdisciplinary usefulness of, say, math, but even so, it's a valuable field of study and endeavor for the many things it does offer us. No, music isn't indispensable for our daily lives, but so what? In our society, much of our daily lives are given over to trivia and nonsense. We as a society desperately need some higher aims.

[Superhorn]

  I retract what I said about starting music appreciation classes in later grades. Yes,it's possible for kids to start to appreciate classiocal music earlier. But from my own experiences, both in my shool days and as a
substitute music teacher, I've found that many kids have been just plain apathetic or downright hostile in these classes.
  If kids take a class on music appreciation and the teacher does not do a good job, kids can find it a really tedious experience and it can turn the off to classical music for life.