Tired of Platitudes

 "Of course music is important!"

"Every school should have quality music instruction"

"We support music in our schools"

These things get said over and over, yet even pre-COVID, too many music teachers felt unappreciated. Overworked. Tired.

The fact is that no matter what the politicians say, they don't really support music in the schools. Not in any meaningful way, anyhow. They want music in the schools the same way a department store wants the mannequins dressed up in the windows. It's PR and a fancy checklist item to them. It's clear with the lip service they give us by doing things like making music a "core" subject in major education bills, but then not providing any funding or incentives for schools to actually include it.

To borrow a word from my last group of high school students, I've always been a little salty about this. Of course, individuals can feel supported in their state, district, or school, but the national level of response as it is in so many things is just....meh. A perfect example landed in my mailbox today. My most recent copy of Teaching Music arrived and I saw there was an interview with the new Education Secretary, Dr. Miguel Cardona.  Now to be perfectly clear before you read any further, I do believe he is a massive improvement over the last person--but it's also clear that a steaming pile of compost would have done better than his predecessor-- the bar was pretty low. Regardless, I was cautiously optimistic when he was nominated and confirmed. 

My optimism was immediately dashed when he immediately pushed for in-person schooling during a pandemic before vaccines were available. As with many other politicians, he cited the nebulous and arbitrary "learning loss" that was made up by the testing companies fearful they'd lose ground with their business model. As teachers and researchers push for more progressive best practices that help students learn more and in different ways, the needs of business still dictate that we manufacture little workers who can fill out test bubbles. But I digress. 

So I started reading the interview hoping that it would show my first impressions to be incorrect. Maybe this is the guy who will finally support music education! He's doing the interview, that must mean something, right? And within the first couple questions, he mentions that his kids are highly involved in their school music and theater program, and that's why they didn't move to D.C. with his new job. He follows this up with a statement about how important music has been to his kids and all kids should have the same opportunities. At this point I'm getting excited (I mean, who gets excited to be wrong?! I know, I'm weird).

Then the next page I hit this: 

        "Imagine if we work together in music and the arts to create a campaign similar to what we've done over the last 16 months to close the digital divide?...I think we can do it better now than ever before because what we've learned through COVID-19 is that you don't need to be physically in front of the instructor to learn. We now know how to give students access to educators who have musical backgrounds and expertise. We can expose these students to a quality music education just as other students enjoy across the country."

Wait a sec. Didn't he just say he didn't make his kids move because the music programs in the D.C. area somehow all aren't up to snuff (which I find hard to believe)? Why can't he find "educators who have musical backgrounds and expertise" through the magic of the internet as he's suggesting for other kids? He's talked a great deal in this article and in other interviews about the importance of learning in person. Does this not matter for music? A subject in which live human interaction is a vital part of the entire art form? Or is this just another way of saying that we don't have to have a licensed expert in the room, we just need to get them on a screen so we can say we have music instruction in every school. Check the box. Window dressing. Make the data look good.

So I only have one question for Dr. Cardona: When you say you support quality music education opportunities for every child, why can't schools have the proper resources and funding for every kid to have what YOUR kids have?

But cut it out with the platitudes.

On to the dissertation!! (and job hunt)

March 22, 2021: I received a pass on my qualifying exam papers. It's a big step and I'm really excited, I now get to start working on my dissertation. Once I finish my coursework and dissertation proposal I am considered "ABD" (all but dissertation) status and that means I can start applying for jobs...and I am not all that excited about that. 

The economy still hasn't fully recovered from the pandemic, and it may not for several years, especially since we are looking at a massive fourth wave that may threaten the success of vaccinations. People with far more experience (and tenure) are getting laid off, departments cut...and all of them will be looking for jobs along with all of the grad students like me trying to just get their foot in the door. And the people who aren't laid off get more responsibilities dumped in their duty pile, while receiving no extra incentive, pay, or relief from the workload of committees, service, or research they already do. And then the positions that ARE posted are increasingly adjunct, "one year visiting" positions, or the workload is beyond ridiculous. I sometimes check the posted jobs just to get an idea of what's expected. One job was shared on social media and what this person commented really sums up all the postings I've seen: 

Two things strike me about this: Most academics would look at that 63k and think it's actually a decent level of starting pay, and the unfortunate reality that they're probably right. 

So I began looking at other types of jobs. What would happen if I went back to k-12? Got into politics? Other academic jobs? And I started noticing something. There are a LOT of "school of education" jobs....like exponentially more than music education (or even more general "music" faculty jobs). The competition is fierce for those unicorn tenure-track jobs, especially in places academics generally want to live (I have also noticed a pattern of openings in....ahem....states with certain political leanings.....) but why not in general education? Why are there so many more openings? 

Obviously, one explanation is that a school of education is larger than a school of music in most universities, and certainly bigger than music education faculty allotments; so there are simply more jobs, period. But I also wonder how much the pay discrepancy plays into that. But I can hear my advisors now: How does that apply to MUSIC, Tina? Well, what is always the biggest complaint of music education students? That their School of Ed professors have no idea what they do, nor do most of them care to understand. That certainly was my experience, especially going to a school too small for the music faculty to cover classes like assessment and classroom management.

In my generation, we were told it's good for you to have professors like that, because you will inevitably have administrators who are the same way. Learn how to advocate for yourself early! Learn how to translate music into edu-speak. But what if universities hired arts teachers to fill some of those school of ed positions instead? Translators, of a sort? Arts educators training future principals and counselors so they have a better understanding of those subjects when they run a school or create schedules?

Hope for the Next Two Years

 Reader, I'm not going to lie. I felt an enormous weight lift when President Biden was sworn in last week.

While discussing the events of January, my neighbor spoke for many of us when he said "and now the work REALLY starts" and as a music educator I felt that statement in my bones.

Education at the moment is a mess, not least of all because of the inconsistent hodgepodge systems being used for the pandemic. But public education is also suffering from four years of deliberate sabotage and twenty years of "reform" policies, which all stem from either a misdirected goal of erasing inequality through education or to completely privatize education. 

It's ironic that the reformers all claim to want the same thing---better educational opportunities and outcomes without spending more money!---but have wildly different definitions about what that means, or which children they mean to help. And of course the pandemic has exacerbated all of these conflicts, with one result being the record number of teachers leaving the profession. Because who wants to be blamed when the policies fail, and not even be able to fully support yourself from the salary? Or to receive derision when you finally say "but I'm not willing to die for it"??

And while a poisonous houseplant would have been an improvement over DeVos, I have not set my mental expectations bar at that level. Secretary Cardona certainly has his work cut out for him. I'm optimistic that those of us in education can use this moment of upheaval for eventual good, and it is encouraging to me that Mr. Cardona has actually taught in a classroom, and isn't a businessperson who thinks they know better than the people who actually work with kids.

Here's a bit of what I hope to see:

1. An acknowledgement that if they want schools physically open, that's going to require teachers/staff to be moved up the priority list for vaccines, and funding is going to be needed to reduce class sizes. And action to support that. Preferably action that doesn't hold schools hostage to an unrelated agenda to receive the money.

2. A moratorium on new charter schools, since that interferes with equitable funding , promotes segregation, and do not have better results than traditional public schools (except when they selectively choose their student populations).

3. Accountability for existing charter schools equal to the level required of traditional schools. Mostly to prevent this. And this. And this. You want public money? You get public oversight.

4. A reversal of all the discrimination policies that have been put in place the last four years.

5. A ban on federal money going to k-12 religious schools.

6. Overturning "right to work" laws that hamstring collective bargaining, though I acknowledge this might not be possible at the federal level without some serious arm twisting.

7. A federal educator "minimum wage" of at least $60k. My pie-in-the-sky wish is that they use the military Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) zip code formula to adjust that number to geographic area.

8. And closest to my heart, a renewal of federal support for a holistic curriculum that considers arts, science, foreign language, history and civics equal to language arts and math. 

I don't know how much of my optimism will be borne out. But the time for educators to push for these things is now. Our kids can't wait for us to decide if we want to be reactive or proactive, and we finally have an administration that might be able to make some positive changes. 

Arguing for cultural responsiveness in the classroom

What does it mean to be culturally appropriate? What is the difference between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation? What does it mean to be culturally responsive?

Each of these questions could likely be the topic of its own paper, with as many definitions for the terms as people willing to write about it. The easiest one to tackle is the difference between cultural appropriation and appreciation. Appropriation is most commonly defined as the improper use of some part of a culture by someone outside of that culture. Appreciation is when a part of a culture is used in a way that is approved by the members of that culture. An example of cultural appreciation is a 2nd grade class learning how to do a Chinese dragon dance while learning about the Lunar New Year. But where is the line between appreciation and appropriation? Could this example be interpreted as appropriation? Are learning environments automatically exempt from appropriation if the teacher has good intentions? Or must more care be used to avoid misuse of the activity?

In Bonnie Wade's book Thinking Musically, she divides the chapters into sections such as "Thinking about Pitch" or "Thinking about Time" flipping upside down the ideas that Western classically trained musicians have when conceptualizing music outside that canon. But most importantly, she starts with "Thinking about People" indicating that what makes music universal is the humans at the center of it. As Elliott and Silverman purport in "Music Matters" for musical praxis, people must be at the center. And from this perspective it seems obvious that music education, and inclusion of music outside the agreed tradition is not only acceptable, but necessary. From this side of the issue we could argue that all music learned in school is appreciated through learning, as the 2nd graders learn to appreciate the artistry of experienced dragon dancers.

However, is that all there is to being culturally appropriate in the classroom? What about the high school whose band traditions include the campy "native American war song" (especially in a state where a significant Native American population lives)? How about the suburban almost exclusively white school being taught by a white teacher decides to delve into African American pop music and rap? Does the St. Olaf choir get a pass on singing spirituals with a distinct classical sound because Dr. Anton Armstrong happens to be African American?

To be culturally appropriate in the classroom setting is to be culturally responsive to the realities of the people in the room and outside the room. Educators jobs should not be to avoid the hard realities of these questions but to face them in a thoughtful way that honors all of the people involved. In this way, the teacher must exercise their expert status and have or acquire technical and contextual knowledge of the culture students are learning about, as Estelle Jorgensen says in her chapter about rule and law. But also as Jorgensen says in her chapter about "Seashore and Energy" teachers must also be flexible and open to the reality that there might be other experts including the students who can contribute to a more authentic experience. Being culturally appropriate and responsive avoids appropriation when all the humans (composer, artist, teacher, student, audience) are respected throughout the process.

Music in our Schools Month

The title of this post is "Music in our Schools Month" which feels a little surreal because there's no school happening right now. Not happening in any real way, that is. Everything we do right now, all our little routines, our complex and intricate web of functioning society has just commenced a massive shift to maybe save a large portion of our most vulnerable population.

And because schools have shut down and moved online for now, I've seen many music teachers express frustration about how does one even teach an ensemble class online? Death by worksheet? Creative projects? Theory websites and playing tests? And almost overnight a plethora of ideas came forth. Shared documents, Facebook groups, links to Pinterest boards and dedicated websites. Survival. Give our supervisors and administrators an excuse to keep paying us though they must surely know this is not ideal for any sort of teaching and learning.

Among my professional performer and artist freelance friends, I see two themes: First, they are justifiably worried about how they will pay their bills. They express gratitude for significant others who can float them or gratitude for day jobs that will squeak them through for now. Others who are not so lucky to have that cushion don't know where help will come from but are putting on a brave face and doing the best they can. Second, they are all continuing to make art, even if just for themselves---because it keeps them sane in a world that feels more and more like it's completely upside down.

I'm also taking philosophy of music education this term for my PhD program and we keep coming back to why is music different? Why educate in the arts at all? And I think THIS. THIS SITUATION IS WHY WE DO THIS. Forget about the theory worksheets for now. How are students using music to get them through this terrible time? How are we as music educators encouraging them to use music to get through this? How will they use it to get through hard times in the future? THAT is the purpose of educating in the arts. Not for better math scores. Not because it helps them get into college. Because it's part of their humanity. Because we can rage through it. Because we can weep through it. Because we can laugh through it. Because we can unite through it.

Music in Our Schools Month and every month always.

And to end this post, I'd like to play one of the first songs I ever learned on guitar: A communion song that was written by my high school choir director. I had already decided to be a music teacher before I took his class, but it was largely because of my experience there that I ended up teaching choir (although I did also teach band for a while). I decided not to sing in this video because I can't find the CD and I don't remember all the words, my guitar playing isn't as secure as piano (ha!), and also because I didn't trust myself to not cry. It's been a day.

Summary of Musical Understanding

Elliott and Silverman begin the chapter on musical understanding by defining what it is not: Exclusively "basic musicianship skills" such as dictation, notation, sight-singing, technical facility, or other surface level technical skills whether physical or verbal. Later in the chapter, they include this as a specific kind of musical knowing, but they argue that this is only one aspect, not musical understanding as a whole.

Following the idea that musicing is something people do, they set a litmus test for musical understanding as experiences that are "satisfying, meaningful, enjoyable, transformative, and personal-musical growth experiences" (p 202) and that teaching-learning episodes should "spark, support, enliven, arouse, sustain, and advance positive personal experiences" which seem to support the earlier argument that musicing is human experience that is more than the sum of parts. The ways of knowing and thinking musically according to the authors are split into ten parts.

1. Embodied and Enactive--- The mind and body cannot be separated, so a holistic musical knowing will include aspects of knowing with the body as it is connected to the mind.

2. Musicianship and Listenership--- This is the decision making process, what do we want to teach, learn or communicate and how? 

***3. Procedural--- You can only know by doing. Elliott explains this way of knowing is only possible through direct experience. For example, a military wife may know many aspects of Army culture or things like chain of command, but knowing those things and living them are very different experiences that affect procedural knowledge. Where this seems problematic for music, however, is the idea that people cannot possibly have procedural knowledge about music if they have never done music. The procedural knowledge of the clarinet player surely affects their listening experience to a clarinet performance. However, if this is taken to the author's logical end, conductors could never be proficient at procedural knowledge because there is no way to become that proficient at all of the possible instruments. So while I see his point, I think procedural should be included with experiential (#5) to be clear that any who experience music can have some procedural knowledge.

4. Verbal--- This is the one referred to in the opening statement, most commonly perceived as "musical understanding" as defined in standards, assessments, and written curriculum.

5. Experiential--- The knowledge developed by people as they do music. For example, a person who spent their life playing electric bass for a rock band will have a very different experience than someone who has been trained in a classical style. They may both be considered professionals, and have some shared experiential knowledge (such as negotiating pay for a gig) but their experiential knowledge (how to balance sound in an amplifier vs. balancing acoustic sound with a pipe organ) will be very different. Not better than one another, but different.

6. Situated--- How people use their musical knowledge together as a group, in a relational sense.

7. Intuitive--- Non-verbal, feelings. Elliott and Silverman warn this one can be misleading, as it is grounded in strongly felt sense rather than processes of logic, but can still be a useful tool. I suspect this one is highly valued by the author who comes from a jazz background, and jazz musicians tend to rely on this after many years of verbal and experiential knowledge growth.

8. Appreciative--- Recognizing a creative opportunity as a possibility rather than an obstacle. When a teacher utilizes an organic "learning moment" to expand the musical knowledge of the students, rather than rigidly sticking to a lesson plan, they are demonstrating this aspect of musical knowing.

9. Ethical--- The knowledge we use to make ethical decisions about what pieces we choose to teach or perform, and the context that has to be involved in that decision making process. This could probably be included in the musicianship and listenership, or the verbal ways of knowing since it is a more cognitive way of processing musical knowledge. It doesn't seem very useful to separate it out.

10. Supervisory--- This way of knowing is specifically the musicianship-listenership-verbal from the teacher/conductor point of view. This is holistic knowing, and planning with intent what experiential and situated knowledge a leader wants their ensemble or class to know.

Picking on Elliott

This week's assignment was to "play the naysayer" to one of Elliott's main themes in chapters 2-3. As I started reading I remembered what Dr. Abril said about how we can read all sorts of contradictory philosophical works and agree with all of them because of how well the argument is presented. I started out this week's reading wondering what I could choose to "pick the naysayer" to because I didn't immediately see anything with which I had a gut-reaction disagreement.

However, in Chapter 2, as he discusses the definition of "praxis" he lists out the parts, and sums it up as basically that music is more than the sum of the parts. He demonstrates this by saying music cannot be separated out from the "social, cultural, ethical, economic"--or more commonly understood extra-musical values that are integrated into thoughtful musical education praxis.

While I agree that those extra-musical values are interwoven into a quality music education experience, he quotes Bowman on page 51 as saying "music as a social act and a social fact, instead of music as an entity [a thing] to which my relationship is aesthetic, receptive, and somehow individual in nature." He says this as if the aesthetics of musical experience is not also integrated into praxis. Aesthetics is a value or value judgment on arts, and from my own experience it is clear to me that the aesthetic value a student places on a piece of music is directly related to their motivation to learn it, or work together with others to improve it. If we do not critically educate students about how to make aesthetic judgments, they will gravitate towards that which is already familiar. And if students are not learning new things in a music classroom, only rehashing what is comfortable, why would we even need music educators to do anything beyond the techne? I would argue that the aesthetic is the value that equals more than the sum of the parts.