quandry
as you can see the blog is mostly empty these days, but its not because of a pause in my schedule, but mostly because i like to write to help organize my thoughts. these days most of my pbe time is taken up recording and mixing which does not lend itself to blog friendly posts. (although a few premix demo's should appear in the next few days.)
for the last few months what has really been on my mind is our music education system. teaching a freshman theory class has helped focus my anger and frustration at system that has not improved much in my lifetime. if you look at if from an outcome based approach, most students who enter college today have very little beyond the techniques needed to play their primary instrument. general musicianship skills are few and far between. but for any of you reading this has been around most colleges, this is no surprise.
we obviously have failed these students. the one thing they have in common is that most have participated in a choral or instrumental performance based program. i have heard them perform at festivals, sung and played the "proper music", worked with "famous" clincians and even received superior rankings. i'm not saying the performance of these groups is poor.
performance is probably the one thing we do very well in the united states. but the main point that keeps running through my head is that the major innovations in classroom teaching (orff, kodaly, dalcroze, suzuki and gordon/froseth) have now been around for at least 40 years, but their methods have barely reached the our primary and secondary school classrooms. usually i can look at any freshman student who tests well on an entrance exam and ask them about their training and inevitably they have a background in one of these methods.
now having taught in all levels of education, the view from the university is pretty grim. being exposed to a variety of pedagogy's fosters learning in all students, not just the quickest and brightest. the big problem that i face in my mused classes (as a teacher trainer) is that most students who are going to become teachers first experience with these methods is in their junior or senior year of college. how can this still be? of course, i (and my colleagues) do the best with what we have to work with. patiently creating teaching experiences so they can get their feet wet? i could understand that the penetration of kodaly and orff into the classroom might have been limited in the 1970's, but now? i'm not sure if it is ever going to change.
so as i contemplate my pursuit of a doctorate in education or composition, the depressing quandary i see myself in is:
what good of any of this "innovation" (from the last 30-100 years) and research if it hasn't gotten down into the classroom?
its late and i could go on forever... next i'll give a few details and outline the insanity of "traditional" instrumental music pedagogy and why 70% of the students fail.
for the last few months what has really been on my mind is our music education system. teaching a freshman theory class has helped focus my anger and frustration at system that has not improved much in my lifetime. if you look at if from an outcome based approach, most students who enter college today have very little beyond the techniques needed to play their primary instrument. general musicianship skills are few and far between. but for any of you reading this has been around most colleges, this is no surprise.
we obviously have failed these students. the one thing they have in common is that most have participated in a choral or instrumental performance based program. i have heard them perform at festivals, sung and played the "proper music", worked with "famous" clincians and even received superior rankings. i'm not saying the performance of these groups is poor.
performance is probably the one thing we do very well in the united states. but the main point that keeps running through my head is that the major innovations in classroom teaching (orff, kodaly, dalcroze, suzuki and gordon/froseth) have now been around for at least 40 years, but their methods have barely reached the our primary and secondary school classrooms. usually i can look at any freshman student who tests well on an entrance exam and ask them about their training and inevitably they have a background in one of these methods.
now having taught in all levels of education, the view from the university is pretty grim. being exposed to a variety of pedagogy's fosters learning in all students, not just the quickest and brightest. the big problem that i face in my mused classes (as a teacher trainer) is that most students who are going to become teachers first experience with these methods is in their junior or senior year of college. how can this still be? of course, i (and my colleagues) do the best with what we have to work with. patiently creating teaching experiences so they can get their feet wet? i could understand that the penetration of kodaly and orff into the classroom might have been limited in the 1970's, but now? i'm not sure if it is ever going to change.
so as i contemplate my pursuit of a doctorate in education or composition, the depressing quandary i see myself in is:
what good of any of this "innovation" (from the last 30-100 years) and research if it hasn't gotten down into the classroom?
its late and i could go on forever... next i'll give a few details and outline the insanity of "traditional" instrumental music pedagogy and why 70% of the students fail.
Labels: music education
posted by paul bailey at
6:55 PM
1 Comments:
the difference between the kids who came into the high school band program from my middle school and the middle in the next time was musicianship.
in my senior year, i was second chair 1st clarinet in the wind ensemble, the first chair player and i did not attend the same middle school. part of the reason why he was first chair and i wasn't was because he had a stronger background in musicianship, a term i didn't quite understand then.
at my middle school we did scale tests, and that was about it. we played the same pieces every year. we occasionally did rhythm exercises but that wasn't very often.
the truth is that i was not as good at reading rhythm as my friend who held first chair and as a matter of fact, the majority of us who came from my middle were poor at sightreading and rhythm. i really don't know how they were taught at the other middle school but i knew that they were doing something different that was making them better musicians.
yeah...and then you go to college and you still get people who don't know how to teach musicianship to students and the majority of the students fail the course because they can follow the man's illogical dictation exercises.
life is good. get a phd in comp.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home