Daniel Warren

MUED 670

Vision 2040: What responsibility should public schools have in teaching music?

The landscape of music education has continued to change in America since its public

institution almost 200 years ago. From simple singing schools to now having publicly funded

scholastic music programs and fine arts academies, music has continued to evolve, and by 2040,

I would like to see its continued evolution go from social control and dependence on government

funding to more privatized and community based organizations and ensembles. There are

several reasons that this will be the better option than public school music, but before I delve into

that, I would like to preface my thoughts by saying that this is not a stab at current music

teachers. Many of my good friends are public school music teachers, I myself am a music

educator and taught for three years before pursuing graduate work, and a good portion of my

early music education came at the hands of public school teaching. My proposals and reasoning

are simply in hopes of continuing to improve and ensure the future of music education for the

betterment music makers and the music itself. My vision is simple, and what I believe to be a

common-sense solution, but before we speculate what role the public schools should or should

not play in music education, we must first examine a few issues, both current and historical, that

might be pushing the field in a new direction.

In a similar vision statement composed almost 20 years ago, Bennett Reimer purported

that “Whenever and wherever humans have existed music has existed also...music clearly must

have an important value for people” (Reimer, 2000). I think most people would agree with this

comment and, anecdotally, they need only walk across a college campus, through the halls of a
high school, or down the streets of any city and observe just how many people listen to music; it

certainly engages people. “Why then,” one might ask, “is school music enrollment just over

20%?” according to recent national poll (Elpus & Abril, 2011); additionally, this figure is down

from almost 42% in 1976 (Hoffer, 1980). I think most people’s initial response would be that

“not everyone likes the music that’s being taught,” and to a large extent, I think that might be

true. “Well, we should just teach music that everyone likes,” may sound like the easy answer, but

music is frankly too broad and too diverse of a subject to teach in a manner that best suits all

people at all times in all places. This is where I think music education is at another proverbial

tipping point, and the best option is to use the momentum to change its course to keep music an

important part of people’s lives.

I think part of the initial problem with enrollment is that there is simply too much other

stuff going on in the school that music is forced to take a backseat. The implementation of SOLs

in Virginia and similar tests around the country has cast a brighter light on STEM subjects that I

hardly believe is going away anytime soon. Also, the streamlining of these subjects has brought

about an attempt to streamline the arts as well. I think it is completely reasonable that there are

curriculum standards for music and the arts, but as a veteran teacher, I think it is unreasonable to

expect a history teacher and a music teacher to outline a school year in the exact same manner,

but that is exactly what I and my colleagues were required to do. Seventeen years ago, the music

teacher turnover rate was at a record high for the time, and the increasingly strict regulations

about how teacher must run classrooms has done nothing to help this attrition rate (Krueger,

2000). The more administrative demand there is on what should be taught, the more people are

running away from it. This is not hard to conceive: that adults and professionals do not like

being told what to do.

 The other large part of the problem I see is that society has developed an unhealthy

dependence on public schools, social programs, and government policy in general as their safety

net simply because they are easy and exist. A 2015 survey of parents and teachers by the

National Association of Music Merchants reported that 83% of parents consider music education

to be important for their children, yet current music enrollment is not even half that (NAMM,

2015). Clearly, having easy access to music education has had a reverse effect because there is

much less accountability to seek out the programs. Society has become complacent because it

thinks music education is here to stay, but is it? I certainly hope so, but perhaps not the way it is

currently set up.

One of the arguments against community and privatized music programs is the cost of

operation, but if public schools were not in the business of teaching music and arts, it would save

an exorbitant amount of money in taxes. It would also open up a plethora of new opportunities

from which students of all ages could choose and would drive down the prices of music

education across the board. Music education resides in a fairly heavily regulated market; there is

no real competition. If we treat it as a commodity, while I understand is difficult for some

people to admit, it will ultimately be cheaper, more a plentiful, more available, and more

competitive. If we continue to declare that music education is an inherent right rather than a

good or service, we, in turn, make it less plentiful; declaring things rights does not actually make

them rights or force them appear. What makes more things appear in this case is a market based

system that incentivizes more music teachers, musicians, and opportunities to make music.

Imagine for a moment that music education is a sandwich. If I tell a person to choose

between a slice of bologna between two pieces of bread with no vegetables or condiments, but

free of charge, or a roast beef sandwich with all the fixings, but for $15, chances are they will
choose the free sandwich. No they may not be excited about it, nor will they admit that it is the

best thing to eat, but they will likely take it simply because it is free and better than

nothing. However, if I do not offer a free sandwich, but instead offer turkey on rye or ham on

wheat for $4 a piece, a person has a much better chance of choosing one of those, and it will also

force me to lower the price of my roast beef sandwich if I ever hope to sell it. I think music

education is turning into a similar situation. Lessons, community organizations, and private

programs are becoming expensive and scarce because most people would rather have limited but

free instead of diverse with fees regardless of how manageable. However, if public schools were

out of the business completely of teaching music in a one-size-fits-all curriculum, it would create

a new market for music variety and opportunity that does not currently exist.

Hopefully pu blic school music programs do not continue to decline at such a harsh rate,

but I see their course of action going one of three ways: Schools can keep the same music

offerings and hope enrollment improves, they can require all students to participate and hope

forcible enrollment boosts interests, or they can relinquish control of music education altogether

to private and community programs that seek to serve the musicians. If schools keep doing the

same thing, simply put, they will get the same results, and I think that route has limited

sustainability.

To continue, I would like to also explore attempts to universalize and compel music

education in other countries. A few years back, Liane Hentschke released a study following her

analysis of the Brazilian government attempting to cure the need for music education by making

it mandatory for all students (2013). Aside from being a fascinating read from both sides of the

aisle, this report produced strong implications of how forcing students to take prescribed music

classes actually serves to deconstruct the profession and leads to weakened support and
participation in music making. The initial problem Brazil faced was the supply of music

teachers; there simply were not enough to effectively teach every student in their schools. Of

course, the other option was to use government force to require a percentage of the population to

become music teachers, but this would have brought about an equally insufficient solution in its

violation of basic human rights. In addition to a shortage of teachers, there was simply not

enough time in the school day to teach music to 100% of the population.

Additionally, there was an immediate outcry from teachers in other artistic professions

i.e. visual arts, theater, drama, protesting the idea of compulsory music classes because, if music

were funded and included for every student, then so should everything else. It was an example

of the classes blunder “if you give a mouse a cookie, he will want a glass of milk.” The more

that becomes available at the expense of taxpayer dollars, the more room there is to complain

that something else is not included. Additionally, it removes the responsibility for raising and

educating children in what may be considered the proper way from the people actually

responsible for a child--the parents--to a system that, ultimately, shouldn’t be burdened with

covering what should be personal expenses for the individual families that benefit from the

various music education classes, lessons, and opportunities.

Thirdly, and what I believe to be one of the more compelling arguments, is that

compulsory music classes in Brazil restricted students’ choices and actually resulted in a

decreased level of interest. In fact, survey results showed lowest levels of interest, importance,

and usefulness in students only involved because it was compulsory. A similar study from

Sweden reinforced these findings and strongly suggested that universality does not fix the

problems (Georgii-Hemming& Westvall M, 2010). Our current music education system may not

be actively on its way to being mandated, but I think it can go one of two ways outside of simply
staying the same: we can force students to participate in music, or we can relinquish control of

music programs from the constraints of government regulation and budgets back to the

passionate and skilled professionals through privatized and community opportunities.

Allow me to elaborate on the need for community programs rather than compulsory and

universalized music using another modern topic of debate. Lawyer, political analyst, and

syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro made a statement in a recent Politicon debate that healthcare

can be two of three things: universal, quality, and accessible (2017). Essentially, it can be a

combination of being made available for all people, top of the line, or affordable, but it cannot be

all three. If it is available to everyone, it will either lack in quality or be extremely expensive to

find. If it is high quality, it will cost a good bit of money, or it will inevitably exclude a portion

of the population. If it is in an inexpensive price range, it may be available to a broader market,

but, the buyer will get what he pays for, and the quality of care will be extremely low. I think a

music education can be analyzed in a similar way.

Public schools, in general, are good for very basic things. The costs are also justifiable

when 100% of a student body is receiving the same education opportunities. Ideally, I could

walk into any high school, sit in on any math or history class, and learn the same basic

information regardless of where I am in the country. One could argue that the same should be

true for music, but, anecdotally, that is not the case, and I do not believe it should be. As a

Virginia native and resident, I would not run a Northern Virginia jazz ensemble in the exact

same manner that I would attempt to run a Tazewell bluegrass session. Music education in the

public schools has, to an extent, bottlenecked what is considered “good music” or “appropriate

school music” into a small classification that is currently attracting only a small portion of

students.
 Music teachers spend the majority of their lives studying music, perfecting their craft,

and paying, conservatively, tens of thousands of dollars to be good musicians and competitive

workers. Clearly then, it does not incentivize music teachers to continue in the profession when

others must always dictate the music skills students should learn and the order in which they

should do it as well as how much teachers are paid to essentially relay information rather than

practice their craft; it leads to a decrease in the number of people going into the profession, the

quality of music being made, and subsequently, the number of students being reached.

My vision for public schools is that they get out of the teaching music altogether. I still

want to see strong math, science, history, and language instructors continue as part of students’

basic education, but I believe sports, arts, and additional extracurriculars should be a community

affair. The cost of American public education for the 2013-14 school year was

$632,000,000,000 at the expense of the American taxpayer. Schools could reduce taxes by a

vast margin and put the responsibility of the cost of music, arts, sports, etc. programs back onto

the people using them; this would reduce waste and generate a completely different world of

music education opportunities.

I would like to see a typical public school day last from 8 am to 12 pm, reducing

the. Students would eat breakfast before they arrived, and they would each lunch when the day

ended, thereby shortening the day and reducing the tax burden of free and reduced

lunches. They would receive an hour of instruction in each of their four core subjects, and the

afternoon would be open for music, arts, sports, clubs, etc. as well as plenty of time for

individual practice and homework. On a personal note, I know too many teenagers who limit

their extracurricular participation and stay up past midnight doing homework because their
school day is almost eight hours long. A shortened day and a choice about what music ensemble

to join--if any, to be realistic--would help shape the direction of music education.

Quality music programs will speak for themselves and will thereby continue to attract

musicians and expand capabilities based on community and market demand. There would be no

limit to what lessons and ensembles would exist, and there would be no demand for music

programs to look the same. I overheard an interesting figure recently: A person could eat at a

different New York City restaurant every night for 54 years and never eat in the same place

twice. Imagine if opportunities for community music programs were even a fraction as

impressive! Not all communities are exactly alike, and programs designed around the needs and

wants of individuals in the community will eventually sustain themselves. Perhaps there might

be a community bluegrass group or an Irish school. Whatever is in demand, these programs can

be created and tailored.

I suspect that the immediate argument against this would be that it could restrict

accessibility, but the harsh reality is that so do our public schools. With a national enrollment of

only 21% in music, can we really afford to keep arguing in favor of the current system? Even if

music education participation is 30% with community and private programs--which is still lower

than I would care to see--it is better than the situation we have now. If it is as important as

people like to claim, then they will make it a priority. It may require a reevaluation of what is

important. It may require an overhaul of family structures and the social fabric of our society.

No, it may not look exactly the same as it does now, but I think it will serve a broader audience

and generate more lifelong music makers in the process.

 Works Cited

Elpus, K., & Abril, C. R. (2011). High School Music Ensemble Students in the United States.

Journal of Research in Music Education,59(2), 128-145. doi:10.1177/0022429411405207

Hentschke, L. (2013). Global Policies and Local Needs of Music Education in Brazil. Arts

Education Policy Review,114(3), 119-125. doi:10.1080/10632913.2013.803415

Hoffer, C. (1980). Enrollment Trends in Secondary School Music Courses. Bulletin of the

Council for Research in Music Education,63, 20-24. Retrieved October 22, 2017, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40317604

Krueger, P. J. (2000). Beginning Music Teachers. Update: Applications of Research in Music

Education,19(1), 22-26. doi:10.1177/875512330001900105

Mason, L. (1838). Manual of the Boston Academy of Music: for instruction in the elements of

vocal music, on the system of Pestalozzi. Boston: Wilkins & Carter. Retrieved October 2, 2017,

from https://archive.org/details/manualbostonaca00musigoog.

Reimer, B. (2000). Why Do Humans Value Music? In C. K. Madsen (Author), Vision 2020: the

Housewright Symposium on the Future of Music Education. Reston, VA: MENC. Retrieved

November 12, 2017, from https://nafme.org/wp-content/files/2015/12/6-

WhyDoHumansValueMusic-by-Bennett-Reimer.pdf.
Shapiro, Ben. (2017). Politicon. Pasadena, CA. Pasadena Convention Center. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIAyudtNicY.

Georgii-Hemming, E. & Westvall M. (2010) Music education—a personal matter? Examining

the current discourses of music education in Sweden. B. J. Music. Ed. 2010 27:1, 21–33.

doi:10.1017/S0265051709990179

Striking A Chord: The Public's Hopes and Beliefs for K-12 Education in the United States: 2015.

(n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2017, from https://www.nammfoundation.org/educator-

resources/striking-chord-publics-hopes-and-beliefs-k-12-education-united-states-2015.