Hey ~Contact.FirstName~,
You probably already noticed that this is different from your regular newsletter. No clever title (I am clever, right?) or pretty graphics. This is not a blog or an opinion piece, it is more of a conversation, so I am treating it like one.
I have been contemplating this for a while now, and forthcoming data from The State of Music Education Survey has only confirmed my suspicions. Let me start with a few questions.
Is there a correct way to start kids in music?
Specifically, is there a correct age, class frequency, number of instructional minutes, or order of operations?
I am not talking about scope and sequence, for which some commonly accepted norms exist; I am talking about the structure of music education.
Let me backpedal a bit and tell you where and how this started.
My boys attend schools in the second-largest district in Arizona. While situated in a state that notoriously underfunds schools, these schools are well-funded, have resources, and are successful in every endeavor: athletic, academic, and activities. That is, except for music.
We moved to our current house partly because of the schools and district. I was even more overjoyed when I learned that the district required music (band/orchestra/choir) for EVERY fifth and sixth grader. HOW AWESOME IS THAT? I was elated.
Years later, my son started the band as a fifth grader, and his teacher was fantastic. We had two wonderful years, but as he moved into junior high school, virtually all of his friends and classmates chose not to continue. Despite having 1300 students, only about 85 kids enrolled in the 7th and 8th grade bands. The program had only enough classes/students to be a part-time teaching position. To make things worse, the junior high had block scheduling for the electives. Music classes met every other day, losing approximately 50% of the instructional minutes students should have received.
As my son moved to high school, he moved from trombone to front ensemble. My wife protested vigorously, but I consented. When she asked why? I told her, "Because he is bad at the trombone."
She was miffed, but I was right.
It got me thinking. How can a kid who has played classical piano since kindergarten, with a band director father, and be in the band for four years be so bad at the trombone? Additionally, how does a school district that requires music for every child have such small participation in secondary music at every school? (My son's high school band currently has 40 plus in the band in a school of over 4,000 students.)
My conclusion? They're teaching music wrong.
It's not the teacher's fault. My kids have some fantastic teachers who are trapped in a flawed system.
Let me explain.
The district is rare because it uses a junior high model, K-6, 7-8, 9-12.
Music is required for 5th and 6th graders (for a grade-level prep).
This model means they receive about 50% fewer instructional minutes than if they were to start in middle school (6th grade) and meet five days a week.
Over the two years, they will have missed 180 days of music instruction that they would have received had the district been on a middle school model.
Now add teacher sick days, student sick days, and the retention skills of a 5th grader, and you can see where instructional consistency is problematic.
So, when it came time to choose a junior high school elective, most of his friends and parents said, "He tried it, didn't feel that he was any good, so he is going to try something else."
I tried to explain that no one is good at an instrument after just two years and that, according to minutes in a class, they had received only one semester of instruction in those two years due to the schedule. But they had made their decision. Those kids were lost to music forever because of a flawed system.
My school district teaches music wrong. The data is all there, anecdotal and empirical. I can count instructional minutes, measure attrition rates, track contest scores, and compare them with surrounding districts. The data points lead to the same inescapable conclusion: they are teaching music wrong. I wonder, do they know they are wrong? And if they do, do they care?
If they were teaching math wrong, I bet people would care. If we only taught English every 2.5 days, I am pretty sure administrator phones would be ringing. If science was used as a placeholder so that grade-level teachers could have a common prep, I am pretty sure the Superintendent would hear about it, and there would be packed Board meetings.
Teach music wrong. "Oh well."
So, I attend my boys' concerts (band and choir), marvel at the job their teachers are doing, and wonder what these music programs could and would be if they taught music right.
Looking at it from another angle. If I were to move to a suburb in Texas, both of my boys would likely transition with little adversity or impact. They would be at or above grade level in most curricula, except for music, where they would be two or more grades behind. Because of where I live, my boys received 50% less instructional time, with no access to in-class lessons, from a teacher who does not specialize on their instrument, and has no assistant to help them.
In music, we talk about instructional strategies and best practices. We have learning objectives and agreed-upon national standards. But we might be teaching music incorrectly for almost 40% of this country.
Again, my son's music teachers are outstanding in every way. As good as anywhere in the country. This is not a criticism of them, but more a question of...
Is there a right way to teach music? And if so, why don't we talk about it more?
Have a great week.
Scott
Jump to the FB group to discuss