Kodály Music Education in Canada

Sarah J. Coles

“When all the schools become ‘singing’ ones we shall have real education for
everyone.”

Zoltan Kodály

Most music educators in Canada are familiar at least with the name

Kodály, if not the methodology. Many would be able to make a link between

Kodály and sol-fa and hand signals. For most though, this is the extent of their

knowledge. After over forty years in Canada, has Kodály been truly embraced

and accepted?

The development of International Society for Music Education (ISME) in

1953 is credited with making music educators throughout the world community

more aware of developments in other cultural settings (Green &Vogan, 1991).

This led to profound developments in music education in Canada as educators

became aware of approaches such as Orff, Kodály, and Dalcroze. Each of these

three took a different approach to the development of basic musicianship.

Although Dalcroze was an influence on the other two, his name is the lesser

known of the three. Each has come to be instituted in Canada and has loyal

followers. Those who brought Kodály’s teachings to Canada would have had a

vision for how this system could revolutionize music education here. Have we, as

a society of educators, lived up to their expectations?

 Kodály Music Education in Canada

It was late in the composer’s life that Kodály’s teaching philosophy made 1

its way to Canada through Mae Daly and Richard Johnston (Green & Vogan,

1991), a decade later than Orff. In the spring of 1965, Johnston published an

article in the Canadian Music Educator to share his experiences in Hungary in

early 1964 as the first representative of a Canadian institution to observe the

Kodály approach. Later that year, Kodály was honorary president of ISME and

gave a brief history of Hungary and its education system. Back in Canada,

Johnston instituted Kodály instruction at the Royal Conservatory of Music at

Toronto (RCMT) and Faculty of Music of the University of Toronto, assisted by

Ann Osborn, a grad student who later spent three years in Hungary studying

Kodály’s methods (Green & Vogan, 1991).

Canadian music teachers were further exposed to the Kodály philosophy at

the Canadian Music Educators Association (CMEA) national convention in

Calgary in 1965. Mary Helen Richards of California (author of Threshold to

Music series) presented workshops in music reading and ear training using sets of

charts she had devised from her study of the Kodály method (Green & Vogan,

1991). This may sound like a workshop in Richards’ methods, not Kodály, but

Kodály delegated the development of the actual pedagogy to colleagues, friends

and students (Choksy). For, “what evolved in Hungary under Kodály’s guidance

is actually not a method at all, but a life-permeating philosophy of education of

which only the pedagogical principles may be said to have ‘method.’”(Choksy,

1981)
 Kodály Music Education in Canada

The approaches of Orff, Dalcroze and Kodály all demand intensive 1

training for teachers and generally assume that instruction will be given by music

specialists rather than by classroom teachers (Green & Vogan, 1991). The Kodály

system is designed to follow a specific linear path. However, the trend in

Canadian education has been towards having general classroom teachers deliver

the music curriculum, which means not only that they may have very limited

musical knowledge, but that the students will have a different teacher for music

each year. It becomes nearly impossible to have continuity in programming.

Canadians have not taken full advantage of Kodály’s theories where instruction is

left to general teachers. Initiatives in training come from university teachers but

these specialized approaches have not been emphasized in programs designed for

the training of regular classroom teachers (Green & Vogan, 1991).

Kodály’s philosophy has five basic tenets. They are: that true musical

literacy – the ability to read, write and think music – is the right of every human

being; that, to be internalized, musical learning must begin with the child’s own

natural instrument – the voice; that the education of the musical ear can be

completely successful only if it is begun early – in kindergarten and the primary

grades – even earlier, if possible; that, as a child possesses a mother-tongue – the

language spoken in his home – he also possesses a musical mother-tongue in the

folk music of that language, through which the skills and concepts necessary to

musical literacy should be taught; that only music of unquestionable quality –

both folk and composed – should be used in the education of children. This first
 Kodály Music Education in Canada

basic tenet that all children benefit from a quality musical education was echoed 1

by Dewey (Woodford, 2005).

Kodály was first introduced in Quebec in 1965 by Erzsebet Szonyi of the

Liszt Academy in Budapest. Kodály the composer was receiving recognition in

Canada too, lending greater prestige to his methods, and in 1966 there was a

special radio broadcast of his music in his presence (Roberts, 1969). In 1967,

Hungarian composer Thomas Legrady of Loyola College prepared a 4 volume

French adaptation of the Kodály, McGill, and l’Ecole normal de musique method

for teachers and pupils “Lisons la musique”. A radio series was prepared for

French-speaking students in Quebec which introduced elements of the Kodály

approach: Faison de la musique, by Pierre and Margaret Tse Perron. In spite of

all this most teachers in Quebec have stuck to the fixed doh approach (Green &

Vogan, 1991).

There has been greater success in Ontario than Quebec. Our

catalyst, Johnston, influenced Harvey Perrin, director of music for the Toronto

school board; Perrin visited Hungary with Johnston during 1966 (Green &

Vogan). Both men were members of a music sub-committee producing a new

music course for primary and junior schools. The Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education funded this project, which was meant to reflect recent developments in

music education. This naturally included Kodály. The result was two volumes of

The New Approach to Music. Kodály was but one of the influences on these

books, but the Ontario Ministry of Education sponsored special summer schools

in the Kodály method. The first Hungarian to teach using the New Approach was
 Kodály Music Education in Canada

Ilona Bartalus, who later taught at the University of Western Ontario. In spite of 1

all of this, The New Approach received little official recognition from the

Ministry of Education.

Paul Woodford has stated that the North American approach to Kodály

instruction today differs in many respects from what Kodály originally envisioned

(Woodford, 2000). It is perhaps our North American tendency to take good ideas

from several sources and try to combine them into one great idea that is at fault

here. Here we value freedom, and have a tendency to rebel against any system

which ties us down too much. Perhaps this is why Orff, with its looser structure,

has been more popular here.

“One criticism sometimes leveled at Kodály practice is that it is rigid, that

it is too narrowly defined in scope and sequence. Yet it is this very rigidity, this

knowledge of where one is, where one is going, and how one is going to get there,

that makes it possible for the Kodály teacher to create an environment in which

musical development can take place.”(Choksy) This sounds wonderful, but again

the reality for many teachers teaching music in our elementary schools today is a

heavy workload of many subjects, and standardized tests to prepare for. “Daily

Exercises” are not useful when students are seen twice a week. As Woodford

stated “Kodály was a man of his times. Accordingly, some of his foundational

assumptions and ideas are outdated, and even inappropriate, in our late-twentieth

and early twenty-first century polyglot musical culture” (2000).

 Kodály Music Education in Canada

Nova Scotia has been the province which has embraced the Kodály 1

philosophy the most. Helen Richards was invited to teach at summer schools in

1968 and 1969, shortly after her Threshold to Music series was adopted as the

provincial program. In the following years, two Hungarians, Aniko Hamvas and

Katalin Forrai, were brought in to teach as well as to assist a team of teachers

writing curriculum. They helped immensely in growing interest in Kodály in

Nova Scotia. Three curricula based on Kodály were developed by the Department

of Education (Green & Vogan, 1991). Unfortunately, work done on Kodály in

Nova Scotia was known more by Americans than by other Canadians. A greater

sharing of information between the provinces would surely save a lot of

duplicated work. However, the world became aware in 1977, when the Third

International Kodály Symposium was held in Wolfville on the campus of Acadia

under the co-chairmanship of Kaye Dimock and Vernon Ellis.

In 1973 Mae Daly founded the Kodály Institute of Canada with Gordon

Kushner of Toronto as president. For several years Daly held the post of

executive director with an Ottawa head office. Later, it changed its name to the

Kodály Society of Canada. The Society issues a small publication and holds

workshops and national conventions. There are provincial branches in British

Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. While active, the organizations are

small. In 2009, the Kodály Society of Ontario (KSO) boasted 74 members

(Kodálysocietyofcanada.ca). Considering the size and population density of

Ontario, this is but a drop in the bucket of elementary music teachers in our

province.
 Kodály Music Education in Canada

The KSO grew out of the National Conference for the Kodály Institute of 1

Canada in London, Ontario in 1985. This was hosted by the Western Ontario

Branch of the Kodály Institute of Canada (WOBKIC). Prior to the 1978 ISME

conference at the University of Western Ontario, the Faculty of Music offered an

intensive summer program directed by Ilona Bartalus. This unique program was

taught by Hungarian teachers steeped in the Kodály tradition. Bartalus taught

solfege; Laszlo Vikar taught folk song analysis just as his teacher Kodály had

done; Miklos Takacs taught choral conducting techniques. WOBKIC was formed

by the students of this program; a group of music teachers from southwestern

Ontario who wished to continue this type of professional development. They

presented annual conferences until 1996, and were effectively amalgamated with

the KSO by 1998 (Alla Breve).

The criticism has been leveled that Kodály’s “pedagogy and musical

values are so thoroughly and unrelentingly European that it is difficult to imagine

how they might be accommodated to suit and do justice to the music of some

other cultures” (Woodford, 2000). Part of the difficulty in a folk-music based

program in Canada is the relative youth of our country. A folk tradition takes

many years to develop. It is questionable whether some of the music incorporated

into our methods as folk music should really be there. Desautels stated “there is

no such thing as Canadian music; what we do have are various kinds of music

written in Canada perpetuating West-European traditions” (1969). Even at this

date, there was the belief that music written here belonged not so much to Canada

as to the countries the new Canadians came from.

 Kodály Music Education in Canada

The criticism has also been leveled (Woodford, 2000, 2005) that the folk 1

music collected by Bartok, Kodály and others has been changed from its original

version to make it ‘better.’ In fact, Kodály explained this in 1906 by stating “the

best must be selected and then to some extent adapted to public taste by some

form of musical arrangement. Folksongs must be dressed to be taken from the

fields to the city” (Kodály, 1964). This does seem to taint the pure idea of singing

the same songs our ancestors did.

As well, there is the glaring absence of the music of our native peoples.

One could easily argue that this is our true heritage as Canadians. The

introduction of Kodály’s methodology with its emphasis on tonic sol-fa has in fact

helped to push out the temptation to learn more about native music, because it

would not so easily submit to fitting neatly into the solfege system. Kodály

himself stated “we can and must learn from the musical culture of all nations”

(1964). But does his system really allow for this? Tonic sol-fa is a great tool for

learning music which uses a Western scale, but not all music does. When

Johnston interviewed Kodály in 1966 he asked him to address the criticism that

there is no guarantee that the Kodály approach is going to be useful in other

countries. His response was that people are the same everywhere, and each

should start with their own folk material (Johnston, 1984). However, as

Woodford (2000) points out, Kodály’s notion that folk music is the root of all

great music is considered highly dubious today. On the other hand, Shehan

Campbell and Scott-Kastner declare that “given the goal of the Kodály approach

to foster musical and cultural understanding, such tools could transfer to the
 Kodály Music Education in Canada

traditional and art music of Asian-, African-, Latin-, and Native-American 1

cultures as well” (1995). These authors argue that the application of Kodály

techniques may be the best tool to understand the musical vocabulary of another

culture’s songs. Zoltan Kodály died in 1967, just as Canada was starting to

embrace his philosophies. What would he think of our adaptations over the past

forty years or so?

Morton (1990) tells of John Barron, a music consultant for Middlesex

County in southern Ontario, who visited Hungary for the 1976-77 school year and

initiated a pilot program for grade one students on his return. The students at the

chosen school saw the consultant four times a week for music instruction; this

was reduced to three in the second year. However, after several years the success

of these Kodály-trained students led to more schools and more grades joining the

program. At the time of Morton’s writing, all of the twenty-seven elementary

schools in Middlesex were committed to their Kodály program.

This case study is an interesting example of the inherent problems in

incorporating Kodály principles into public education. Morton conducted

interviews with various stakeholders which revealed skepticism about how well

the school board upheld principles of the Kodály concept of music education.

There were major differences of opinion between teachers and administrators

concerning financial and moral support given by the school board (Morton, 1990).

It was also clear that the educational objectives for implementing the program

were not common among all stakeholders. Morton recommends making these

objectives and the values that support them clearer. She also highlights some the
 Kodály Music Education in Canada

practical factors such as financial support systems, which determine classroom 1

time, planning time, resources, and professional development. Morton also states

that “teacher training continues to weaken the application of the Kodály program

and demonstrates a need for improved interaction between teacher training

institutions and school boards” (1990). If the teachers’ colleges offered Kodály

training, then it would be used in schools. But with the move away from

specialists, general teacher candidates must be trained, and they often do not have

the background to be able to learn sight-singing at the students’ level, let alone at

the teachers’ level.

Johnston’s enthusiasm for Kodály, whom he refers to as ‘our mentor’

knows no bounds. One of his statements serves as another clue as the difficulty of

fully implementing Kodály in Canada. Johnston states that “we only need to

know what our musical priorities are in order to achieve our goals, and this

Kodály and his colleagues have done for us, and have done it more intelligently

and with a better-defined purpose than any other music educators of this or any

other century”(1984). This is quite an intense statement. Canada is a young

country, and like a young person, not so enamored of being told what its priorities

are. As a country trying to establish its own identity, being given those

educational priorities by a European nation is even less appealing. Perhaps this is

why the Kodály approach has been adapted more than adopted in Canada.

Woodford wrote “the last thing music teachers should want is to remain slaves to

overly prescriptive pedagogies and methodologies that may well stifle the

thinking and creativity of their students” (2005).

 Kodály Music Education in Canada

One of the other criticisms leveled against the Kodály philosophy is that 1

one of the main goals is to enable students to be able to appreciate the great

masters (Woodford, 2000). Indeed in his 1932 address to the Nyugat Circle of

Friends, Kodály equated possessing any musical culture with knowing the classics

(Kodály, 1964). In today’s world, particularly outside of Europe, it is increasingly

difficult to justify the attitude that all the best works of music have been written

by European men. Few people consider musical culture through such a narrow

lens these days. Music by women and men from all areas of the world are

considered important parts of our culture. A ‘cultured person’ can no longer be

simply someone who appreciates the symphony. It may have been true in 1932,

but Kodály was short-sighted in thinking that this collective vision of what

musical culture meant would last.

On the surface, Kodály has been very successful in Canada. Praise that

Kodály “involves an integration of intellectual, aesthetic, emotional and physical

modes of knowing, therefore can contribute to the development of the whole

child” (Forrai, 1988) has caused it to be embraced by early child educators.

Kodály has been incorporated into programs for the gifted as well as into

programs for the mentally and physically handicapped (Green & Vogan, 1991).

Kodály holds great appeal in regions where there is a long-standing tradition of

choral singing and tonic sol-fa. However, as Woodford (2005) states, “music

education advocates and proponents of particular music pedagogies make all sorts

of quasi-philosophical and practical claims as to their efficacy and superiority

without resorting to reason or much evidence.” This is something to watch for

 Kodály Music Education in Canada

and can lead to the use of the name of a particular pedagogy carrying more weight 1

than it is worth or being used erroneously. As an increasingly capitalist society,

Kodály has become a prestigious label attached to everything that represents

quality in vocal music for children. Canadians like the prestige of a foreign-

sounding label to lend credibility to what they are doing, but at the same time

stubbornly hold on their right to reinvent the wheel if they so feel like it. In

Canada, the methods of Kodály, Dalcroze, and Orff have frequently been

combined in ways that their creators never envisioned. If one label lends

credibility, then two is even better. Sometimes the terms are used very loosely.

Kodály, for example, is often used to label any system that used sol-fa or hand

signals. Although Kodály made no specific mention of hand signs in his writing

(Choksy, 1981), the Curwen hand signs have become an integrated part of the

program.

In the Waterloo Region District School Board, 2011 marked the 25th

anniversary of the Kodály Choral Festival. Its mission statement is: the Kodály

Choral Festival exists to extend the opportunities of selected junior students and

their teachers beyond the classroom, resulting in a unique choral performance for

performers and audience that exceeds the expectations of the WRDSB and the

Ministry Arts document (email correspondence from Rhonda Kran, August 2010).

There is no requirement for participating teachers or students to use any aspect of

the Kodály methods. Songs are chosen for their high quality and include

Canadian folk traditions, songs from the European masters, and music from all

over the world, in several languages. All selections are sung from memory by
 Kodály Music Education in Canada

approximately five hundred students over two evenings. The singers are 1

accompanied by an orchestra made up mostly of teachers and board employees,

and guest choirs from local high schools show these junior students what might

lie in their musical futures. It is a wonderful experience for educators, students,

and parents, and no doubt when the tradition began 25 years ago, there was a

great enthusiasm for Kodály techniques. That national conference for the Kodály

Institute of Canada had taken place only an hour away in London in 1985, when

planning for the first Kodály Festival would have begun. It makes sense that this

fledgling choral festival would be named for Kodály. However, as the years have

passed, the association with that name is more about philosophy and intent, than

about training and methodology. The mission statement makes clear in its

pronouncement that the festival exceeds the expectations of the school board and

ministry for music in the schools. Perhaps it should instead set the standard.

The first thing that the Kodály society stands for is quality music

education. This is why the philosophy was brought to Canada, and this is why it

has been kept alive. The same could be said of Orff. This is a fine goal, but what

do they do to further this cause other than to educate their own members on

techniques? Woodford (2005) quotes Stein as saying “music teachers need to

reconceive themselves as opinion leaders and champions of the public good and

not as just another special interest group” (p.xi). It could be argued that not only

do music teachers see themselves as a special interest group, but through

membership in individual societies such as Kodály and Orff, have further

splintered that group into tiny, powerless slivers. All music educators are
 Kodály Music Education in Canada

passionate about quality music education, about having adequate time and 1

resources to teach, about being taken seriously as a subject. If we are truly to

make a difference politically, we must band together, not split apart.

The Kodály philosophy was brought to Canada and introduced to our

music educators with much enthusiasm and vision. Attempts to incorporate it into

our schools have had varying degrees of success. In Nova Scotia, the Kodály

philosophy has been largely embraced and accepted. In Quebec, it has been

rejected. Many educators are inspired by the words and ideas of Kodály, but

when it comes to actually using his techniques in their classrooms, they do not

find it to be so practical.

It seems that Kodály teachers have been happy to have their small

organization and keep to themselves. Training sessions are offered through the

Royal Conservatory and formerly through the University of Calgary, but these are

few and not inexpensive. Teachers who do use the Kodály techniques these days

do not stick faithfully to the program. The “Daily Exercises” are rarely used.

Oftentimes, ideas from Orff, Dalcroze, and many others are mixed in. But for the

most part, music educators in Canada remain true to Kodály’s purpose of music

education: to teach children to love music so that they engage in life-long musical

learning (Choksy, 1999).

References
 Kodály Music Education in Canada

Campbell, P. S. & Scott-Kassner, C. (1995). Music in childhood. New York: 1

Schirmer Books.

Choksy, L. (1981). The Kodály context: Creating an environment for

musical

learning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Desautels, A. (1969). The history of Canadian composition 1610-1967. In A.

Walter (Ed.) Aspects of music in Canada (pp.90-142). Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Forrai, K. (1988). Music in preschool. Budapest; Corvina.

Green, J.P. & Vogan, N.F. (1991). Music education in Canada: A

historical account. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Johnston, R. (1986). Kodály in North America. Willowdale, Ont.: The

Avondale

Press.

Kodály, Z. (1964). The selected writings of Zoltan Kodály F. Bonis, Z.

Vallalat,

(Eds.). London: Boosey & Hawkes.

Kodály Society of Ontario. The history of WOKS (Western Ontario Kodály

Society). Alla Breve. Issue date and number unknown.

 Kodály Music Education in Canada

Morton, C.A. (1990). A case study of the implementation of the 1

Kodály music

curriculum in Middlesex County, Ontario. (M.Ed. thesis,

University of Western Ontario). London, Ont.: Faculty of Education,

University of Western Ontario.

Roberts, J. (1969). Communications Media. In A. Walter (Ed.) Aspects of

music in Canada (pp.167-246). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Woodford, P.G. (2000). Is Kodály obsolete? Alla Breve, Kodály Society of

Canada, 24, (1&2), 10-18.

Woodford, P.G. (2005). Democracy and Music Education: Liberalism,

ethics,

and the politics of practice .Bloomington, IN: Indiana University

Press.

Zemke, Sister L. (1973) The Kodály method and a comparison of the

effects of a

Kodály-adapted music instruction sequence and a more

typical sequence on auditory musical achievement in

fourth-grade students. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of

Southern California). Ann Arbor Michigan: University Microfilms.