11/06/06 Larry Scripp on “Music’s Evolving Role in Education”
From the article abstract by editor Drew McManus:
Nearly all orchestra musicians are familiar with in-school education programs implemented by their respective education departments. But what options do players have if they want to become more active with in-school education programs or are not satisfied with their current options?
Dr. Larry Scripp, Executive Director of NEC’s Center for Music-in-Education responds to this charge in an article at www.polyphonic.org!
November 14th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
I found two quotes in this article very interesting. The first was “Guided internships in schools provide entry points into traditional and non-traditional education contexts.” I think that by having internship programs in schools, it gives students a chance to see what they might be interested in. After school programs and clubs could also do this, but there is no way to ensure participation. If interships are put in as part of a normal school day schedule, it would expose students to new experiences and different ways of teaching. Today, old and new styles are being combined to get the best possible outcome. Teachers have come up with creative ways to teach traditional methods in todays world with the help of technology and other resources.
The second quote I liked had to do with the Learning Through Music Programs. “What Ken Freed made clear to the LTMCG is that the process of implementing an LTM program begins best with an orchestra residency.” I agree with this idea because students will get to see for themselves
and be exposed to professional musicians on a regular basis. I also think that this idea is key for music in education everywhere. It is a great way to build connections and gain support for these programs. The idea of music in education is already growing and becoming more and more popular. Orchestra residencies will set a good example and I do believe that this will even extend as a model for all the arts.
February 10th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
The quote that really resonated with me was: “The many hours I spent improvising in my parents’ big band and my friend’s garage band were entirely under the radar of public education.”
Our education system needs to make room for arts in its most organic form. If not, we are killing what makes arts education so meaningful in the first place: the fact that the arts are something created by the students themselves (and not just imitated or re-discovered - it is something alive and not just regurgitated or ressurected); something to be enjoyed; something that engages the imagination; something that is grounded authentically in the students’ real lives.
I thought that the Learning Through Music frameworks (and the work of the Community Orchestra Residencies) were very comprehensive. They cover, more or less, all the Celebratory Modes of Arts Education described by Jessica Hoffman Davis in her “Framing Education As Art”: Art Based (inside all learning in a school), Arts Included (alongside all learning as a separate subject), Arts Professional (as objective for learning), Aesthetics Education (as ways of knowing and experiecning the world), Arts Infused (arts practitioners coming from the outside into the school) and Arts Expansion (students going from inside the school to having experiences with the outside world of full-time arts practitioners).
February 14th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I enjoyed this article, particularly the frameworks on the 2nd page. I keep thinking about my “target audience” while in graduate school; elementary students.
I was also reminded of a recent interview on NPR. (Read the NPR.org interview). It’s about a 5th grade teacher who has won awards from the Queen of England, the Dalai Lama, and teachers in LA. One thing I noted in the interview is that each morning when the students enter the class, this teacher Rafe Esquith has a different type of music playing - Dr. Dre, JS Bach, Bob Marley, anything, and they have a discussion about the music once the class has all entered. This brings together an idea I’m interested in researching; the role of music as a community builder, especially in schools.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
The first thing that caught my attention in reading this article was the idea that music programs often favor the talented or those students who already have a large knowledge base in music. Scripp says, “It was as if music was there for large-scale school functions yet these functions usually were designed to showcase only the talented few.” This attention given to those who are already performing better than their peers in place of attention being allocated to those students who need more assistance calls to mind the issue of “widening the achievement gap” talked about in many circles concerned with literacy. Current practices seem to be making the talented more talented, leaving behind those who were already not achieving on the same level as their peers.
Another topic that struck me was the discussion of transfer. The curriculum is “designed to help students explore and understand more deeply fundamental concepts and historical contexts shared between music and any other discipline.” This seems like a one-to-one correspondence. Rather than exploring topics which are by nature interdisciplinary or engaging in conversations with which activate information from a variety of disciplines this seems to be a direct relationship of music being used for a single learnig goal in a single alternative discipline. What about a collaboration of disciplines. Here, opera is brought to mind as here is an example of an art form or topic which engages many disciplines. The music is of course there and then there is history, language arts, storytelling, math and science can be engaged both through content and through set design or the structure of the voice (the science of vocal chords). Rather than striving for one aspect of a musical experience helping a student with their history homework, what if there was just one experience which fostered conversation across disciplines?
February 20th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
As a musician, I have often cringed at the extra-musical justifications offered in support of music’s cause. The idea of teaching music as a vehicle for improving students’ math scores makes me immediately defensive. In light of this, I found the following quote to be very insightful and meaningful. “…music programs can be designed to promote learning in music for its own sake and, at the same time, provide important connections to learning in other disciplines in the arts and academics, as well as personal and social development.” While acknowledging that music, in and of itself, is a worthy discipline of study, Scripp also asserts the importance of connectivity. This connectivity, or what Bernstein called “interdisciplinary cognition”, is something I feel all educational settings could use more of. Far from implying that each subject is not important on its own, promoting connectivity helps students to link what they are learning to other areas of their lives, and can help to promote a deeper understanding of each of these areas.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I am very interested in interdisciplinary education, and music’s (and all the arts’) essential role in this. What struck me most about Scripp’s article were the Five Fundamental Processes. Here, the important skills of engagement for learning are placed at the center of the curriculum. In this way, we can see how learning *ought* to be interdiciplinary, as these processes are necessary for all disciplines — and for life beyond school. By concentrating on the skills that apply to all areas of living and learning, instead of focusing only on discipline-specific facts to be memorized, students will be able to make connections and build bridges of knowledge that go beyond. This kind of thinking is valued and celebrated in our society, but is not taught in school.
What is curious to me is how the arts are the few areas in our schools where creativity, improvisation, performance, and reflection are deliberately taught. Perhaps this is why the arts are so uniquely suited to serving as an entry point into these universal skills.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I found this article interesting in many different ways. First was the construction of an education program for what was formerly a performance based school. It is important for professional musicians to learn the techniques of education (and really it boils down to ways of communicating) as a means of transferring their knowledge to the next generation. This shift in focus from performance to education prompts the LTM response. I agree with the presentation of individual arts programs as a piece of the core academic field. “LTM program values music as much as any other subject area…” One major concern with the program is the approach to assessment. Where traditional classrooms are limited to 32 students (maximum) how are these educators to provide quality feedback and accurate assessment without taking weeks to complete it? One of the unique characteristics about music classrooms is the ability to house larger numbers. This shouldn’t be lost even if the music class is approached in the same light as the traditional academic class. But how do you get to all of the students? (Strategic planning is definitely needed!) I love the five processes and when posted for students to see on a daily basis (around the classroom) this can become an active way towards involving the Making Learning Visible program at Project Zero.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Many of the comments I’ve read so far have resonated with me; just as Joy-Leilani said above, I cringe at the thought of subsuming one academic discipline to another. I relate this to part of the conversation we had in S310B on whether there has to be a dichotomy between the arts and more typically core curricular areas. I’m still lost in a fog on this issue.
Also, I agree with Aliza that the way in which music is taught in many of our schools favors not only those who are already musically capable, but also those who can cognitively decode the notes and rhythms on paper. Especially in instrumental music ed., students who are visual learners and already good readers of language have a leg up on students who are aural learners but don’t decode the sheet-music well enough to “read” it. I could probably move from here into a discussion of the coincidality of music participation and school success, but that’s a different subject for a different day.
Finally, Kenneth Kwok touched on the devaluation of improvisation and creativity in large group music classes, and the fact that students can rarely say “this is mine!” I would love to see a model in which students created their own music and later compared it with their peers and with other music which was originally meant to be “regurgitated or resurrected.”
This part of Larry’s article also resonated for me: “Furthermore, because (of) the current era of school accountability, musicians and educators are now accepting the challenge for holding music programs accountable for measuring the impact of music learning on all children’s lives, and not just the talented few.” Measuring impact is job one is schools today, but in order to measure impact, you have to define what you want, you have to define “success.” My own bias is that success is having a passion for your subject and being able to communicate that passion to others, whether that be through writing, speaking, musicing or otherwise.
February 25th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Building on what Danielle said, I’m also interested in the interdisciplinary role that music may play in developing specific skills in other disciplines. I find particularly fascinating the metaphorical relationship among these skills, clearly depicted in point 4: What is proportion to music and to math? What is color to painting and to music? What is a feeling such as joy to literature and to music? Etc. I believe that the research on these metaphorical relations hold the key towards a truly effective interdisciplinary work with music.
In addition, I know that there are certain institutions (for example: International Baccalaureate Organization, University of Cambridge International Examinations) that foster an interdisciplinary use of music. Being Argentinean, I’m curious about the differences and similarities between those institutions’ approaches and LTM’s. Wouldn’t it be really interesting to compare the diverse findings of these approaches across different countries?
February 25th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Scripp’s article on Learning Through Music – Music’ Evolving Role in Education really helped me question and ponder the idea of education through music and the arts in general. I am torn between two seemingly conflicting ideas of believing in and understanding the interdisciplinary power and role of music in aiding in the learning and understanding of other “academic” subjects and that of appreciating music for itself without using it for the learning of math or history. However, perhaps the two ideas are not conflicting, but rather more complementary.
Furthermore, the reason music is seen as such a powerful and instrumental form of teaching and learning stems from the fact that music is something that is so widely appreciated, understood, and enjoyed. Indeed, Scripp’s highlights that “…musicians and educators are now accepting the impact of music learning on all children’s lives, and not just the talented few.” It is this power of music to appeal to and be understood by all, and not just the select few, that makes it worth further researching and studying.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Building on what Danielle said, I’m also interested on the interdisciplinary role that music may play in developing common skills with other disciplines. Considering some of those skills, as depicted in point 4, I find fascinating the metaphorical relationships that we may find between the different disciplines and music: What is color to music and to the visual arts? What is proportion to music and to math? What is a specific feeling like joy to music and to literature? I believe that the research on these metaphorical relationships is fundamental to an effective development of interdisciplinary education.
In addition, being Argentinean I’m also interested in an international and cross-cultural approach towards the teaching and learning of music. I know that there are certain institutions (for example: International Baccalaureate Organization, University of Cambridge International Examinations, etc.) that include in their syllabus music courses with an interdisciplinary perspective. Wouldn’t it be really enriching to compare those organizations perspectives with LTM’s, see what they have in common and what differentiates them and why?
Another question that I had while reading the article is how to finance music education projects like LTM. Are there specific organizations that advocate for music in the United States? In the world?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:44 am
I was really struck by the concept of the artist-teacher-scholar. As a visual and performing arts teacher, I feel like this concept is applicable across the board, with all sorts of professions: those who consider themselves only teachers, or only artists, or only scholars. Even those who don’t consider themselves any of the above! It makes me wonder how students might respond if THEY were encouraged to become (or convinced that they already are) artist-teacher-scholars. The cyclical process of learning-doing-sharing seems to make so much sense for every aspect of education and daily life.