XIII and XIV Colloquiums: June 19 - 22, 2003:
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
"Music Curriculum Challenges in Elementary and Secondary Schools
and Taking Stock after Ten Years: Next Actions for the MayDay Group"

Curriculum Reform for Music Education:
An Outline Proposal
Thomas A Regelski, PhD

1. “Music” is a general “category of cognition” (Durkheim); i.e., a socially created generative idea where sound is assigned a status function in connection with praxis.


2. Such a category amounts to a “world” governed by a habitus (Bourdieu); i.e., the cultural values and habits that create and regulate the “music world” of a society, region, or community.


3. A “world” of praxis (e.g., “music,” “sport”) is constituted by its various “fields” (i.e., by individual practices within its “world,” such as different musics and sports).


4. A “field”:

a. involves positioning within its “world” over specific resources or stakes, and access to them (audiences, spectators);

b. is a socially competitive arena of its own (i.e., is its own ‘world’ to those in the “field”) in which positioning for power and influence takes place (e.g., between genres of jazz, or between rappers).


5. Music education is a field within (at least) two different worlds of praxis: “music” and “schooling.” [Also relevant, but not covered, is the world of “teaching” or “teachers”.]


6. In the world of music, music education is marginal (except to identify new ‘talent’); music educators have little power, status, or resources in comparison to ‘professional’ musicians—especially Classical musicians whose paradigms, traditions, and ideologies dominate music teacher preparation.

a. Classical traditions, however, painstakingly treat Classical music as esoteric (i.e., inaccessible, thus requiring study and discrimination) and exclusive (i.e., of those failing to ‘make the grade’).

b. In comparison, exoteric musics thrive everywhere in everyday life and are inclusive (self-chosen taste publics, etc.); thus Classical music is (not surprisingly) marginal in society (e.g., requires government subsidy, accounts for only 2-3% of all CD sales, etc.).

7. In the world of schooling, music education is also increasingly marginalized, thus typically losing its reasonable share of resources in comparison to other subjects and activities. [In some places, its very existence is threatened!]


ii.

8. By definition, any praxis (and its “worlds” and “fields,” such as “music” and “music education”) comes into existence to meet certain pragmatic personal/social needs.

a. Praxis is thus valued by individuals/society to the degree it “makes a difference” [Peirce and basic ‘Pragmatism 101’]

b. The value of any praxis, then, is seen in its use—that it is used at all, the particular use(s) to which it is put (e.g., how widespread?) and, ultimately, the “difference” it makes.

c. When habits of praxis do not arise as ‘common’ or widespread praxis, the praxis in question is threatened with extinction (or serves only a self-selected [or self-select] and marginal few).

d. Use (i.e., the habit of promoting personal/social benefit) is the empirical indication of ‘appreciation’ and meaning (relevance) for praxis, including musical praxis.


9. Failure of music education to “make a difference” for individuals/society that is noticeable and notable creates a “legitimation crisis” (Habermas).

a. Such crisis is the result of contradictions and weaknesses within an institution that cause it to fall short of its claimed benefits (or creates new problems). [Immanent critique: using stated claims as evaluative criteria reveals the under-performance of actual benefits.]

b. The typical and regular failure of students to use in life outside of school what they were taught in school (i.e., the lack of compelling empirical evidence that music education “makes a difference”) leads to the rationalization and political positioning in music education called “advocacy.”


10. The legitimation crisis that results from the failure of music education to “make a difference” is connected with:

a. Contradictory music education agendas for universities versus schools: professional training of an elite few for the former, music for general education, and “for every child” (i.e., universal schooling) for the latter. [In the US, “no child left behind”; elsewhere, following the UN Charter, “in the best interests of the child.”]

b. The traditions into which teachers are socialized in their university/conservatory studies are predicated on music-appreciation-as-connoisseurship (MAAC) according to the tenets of orthodox aesthetic theory (McCarthy) whereby knowledge ‘about’ music (including via performance) is needed to promote proper ‘appreciation’ that is manifested through ‘disinterested’ contemplation (listening) for its own sake (i.e., to ‘autonomous ‘works’).

c. Traditional “methods and materials” in general music class are thus predicated on various structure-of-the-discipline curriculum models that teach “elements of music,” “concepts” other technical terms, and background information (e.g., history) that–someday, somehow—will supposedly benefit listening.

d. Disciplined practice of technique, music reading, and ‘literature’ based on “methods books” and the next concert are the collective norm for performance instruction—i.e., teaching “the instrument” without regard for the specific differences instruction should make to students’ future musical options (e.g., musical independence to continue to perform, changed listening habits, etc.).

e. Methodolatry whereby the instructional “method” (predicated on b-d above) in effect becomes the curriculum; i.e., ‘delivering’ instruction according to accepted tradition is the focus, not concern with what the student is able to do better or newly as a result of instruction (i.e., not on whether instruction “makes a difference” that is noticeable and notable).

f. As qualified musical practitioners, music teachers also often fall prey to “performing” their ensembles in ways that just as often do not promote independent musicianship or other skills, attitudes, or habits that support lifelong praxis of some musical kind—just the next concert.


11. All of the above have created a new “field” called “school music.”

a. ‘Positioning’ between schools (and between students and ensembles, and their directors in particular schools) becomes more important than “making a difference” musically for life.

b. Thus it “makes a difference” for only a select (or self-selected) few and, of these, only for the school years.

c. For most students, then, “school music” is directly at odds with ‘real praxis’ (of many kinds: pop, church, ethnic, etc.) outside of school—a problematic comparison with ‘real life’ not usually faced by other subjects (except sex and health education?).

d. Curriculum/instruction based on MAAC thus amounts to a conversion attempt for redeeming students’ musical virtues and values by supplanting (or, only a little more benignly, supplementing) ‘their’ music with “school music” and its commitments to promoting ‘good music’ and ‘discriminating taste’.

e. However, MAAC (including when the model is used in connection with teaching pop, folk, world musics, etc.) is alien to ‘their’ musical practices in the ‘real world’, which are not contemplated but used; thus most students ignore “school music” in their musical lives outside of school and later in life, and it never becomes or contributes to any habit(s) of musical praxis.

f. Parents, taxpayers, school authorities, etc., have all been “schooled” according to the MAAC model and it has failed to “make a difference” musically for nearly all; this alone makes a negative difference in their attitudes towards the personal/societal/educational value of music education in schools.

g. In many ways the legitimation crisis is such that the ‘disconnect’ between “school music” and real praxis has increasingly made Classical music (and even the MAAC model applied to jazz) more esoteric and thus exclusive rather than inclusive (as would befit general/universal education); e.g., “school music” ensembles usually exclude (by competition or self-selection) more students than they include.

iii.

12. Successful praxis “makes a difference” in any “field” because, by definition, results are tangible and can be used to evaluate whether or how well the ‘goods’ at stake were served.


13. To “make a difference” for individuals/society, music education itself must become a reflective praxis comparable to the other helping professions.

a. Curriculum should focus on “making a difference” that, overall, is noticeable and notable;

b. Teaching should involve an ethical responsibility to serve students’ present and future musical needs, not just engage in the methodolatry of teaching music as a discipline for its own sake.


14. Curriculum of and for praxis should replace MAAC and structure-of-the-discipline models; it must focus on promoting habits of musical praxis on the part of all students as a result of instruction—at least as its “guiding ideal.”

a. Teachers should reflect on whether and the degree to which a positive and musical difference has been made by curriculum/instruction in enabling and promoting habits of musical praxis on the part of typical students;

b. And such habits should be promoted (and evaluated) while students are still in school, and in ways that can serve life-long learning and musicking.


15. Such a praxis-based reform of music education curriculum/instruction would in effect be a matter of promoting various kinds of “amateuring” (Booth; see, too, Adams) with regard to a pluralism of musics and increased options for musicking.

a. Amateuring means doing music for the sheer love (Latin: amat = love) of it and sharing musicking with like-minded others. It would include not just performing but all other musicking, as well.

b. Typically, the praxis of amateuring itself ‘practices’ and develops (or at least maintains) expertise—often by learning new literature or extended involvement.


16. Curriculum predicated on a pluralism of ‘amateurings’ should include Classical music along with other musics [students ‘chose’ or ‘gravitate’ to whichever are most ‘attractive’], all selected for curricular inclusion on the basis of:

a. Regional/local availability and appeal;

b. Demographics (i.e., nature of student body in terms of, e.g., ethnic groups, socioeconomic status, rural/urban/city, etc.);

c. Resources (not just of the school, but in consideration of students’ future economic ability to, say, acquire instruments or otherwise take part).

d. Likelihood or ease of accessibility outside of school (e.g., solo and chamber music alternatives are more likely to ‘fit’ into busy lives);

e. Contribution to a general musicianship developed through praxis that is applicable to other praxis; e.g., chords/strums learned for folk guitar that can serve as basis for blues or jazz; performance or composition/arranging skills that “transfer” to listening, and vice-versa, etc.


17. Music teachers would thus be restored to doing what they do best—teaching music, not some vague and elusive ‘appreciation’ or ‘aesthetic experience’.

a. They would also benefit personally and professionally from “making a difference” that is lasting and musical.

b. Such value added to students’ musical lives would also be reflected in the professional goals of the next generation of music educators.


18. Just as musical praxis varies in value and meaning according to situated use, so music education as and for praxis vary would according to situated circumstances.

a. Ideas of standard practice (i.e., methodolatry) would give way to the standards of care of reflective praxis.

b. The idea of standard results (or “standards”) would give way to the norm of “making a difference” (in various ways, according to need, ability, etc.) musically for students served, and thus for society.


iv.

19. According to basic Pragmatism, learning involves the replacement of an individual’s previous action habits with new habits—newly effective ones, or ones devoted to new goods and goals.

a. Such new musical habits on the part of individuals can also enrich and enliven society since music is inescapably social.


20. Similarly, educational progress concerning “schooling”—including, in our case, music education—responds to contemporary life by developing newly effective habits, and habits that serve new social goods and goals.

a. These, in turn, will ultimately “make a difference” for the music world itself and the options it offers for the good life.

References

* Adams, Noah. 1996. Piano Lessons: Music, Love and True Adventures. New York: Delacorte Press.

* Wayne C. 1999. For the Love of It: Amateuring and Its Rivals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

* Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

* Durkheim, Emile (with Marcel Mauss). 1963. Primitive Classification. Chicago: University of Chicago Press [1901-02].

* Habermas, Jürgen. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.

* McCarthy, Marie. 1997. “The Foundations of Sociology in American Music Education (1900-1935).” In On the Sociology of Music Education, ed. Roger Rideout, 71-80. Norman: University of Oklahoma School of Music.

* For a fuller treatment of many of the themes covered in this outline, see:
Thomas A Regelski, “Social Theory, and Music and Music Education as Praxis,” in Action, Theory, and Criticism in Music Education (ACT, the e-journal of the MDG: http://mas.siue.edu/ACT/index.html), in production (2003).