I was asked to take a point/counterpoint position on the following statement: “The primary justification for music education is its intrinsic, inherent value.” Here was my response.
This is an elitist position. In well-funded schools, this attitude leads to separatism, and eventually to an anti-arts bias by those unable to participate. In urban settings, it leads to elimination of programs perceived as peripheral. Sometimes artist-in-residence programs are substituted, allowing students only superficial experiences without allowing an opportunity to participate in learning the language of music.
I'm assuming that it is the intrinsic, inherent value of music that is being justified, rather than the value of music education, or the original statement would be even more suspect. While it is important to recognize what can be taught in music, it is also important to acknowledge what can be taught about and through music. In today’s educational climate, these must be equal partners in justification of music education.
Is it possible to teach music as an isolated subject, separate from other disciplines? This old fashioned, traditional philosophy flies in the face of current theory that suggests that all learning is inextricably linked. Gardner states that the purpose of education is understanding, demonstrated by the ability to use learned information in new situations, transferring between disciplines. Healy, Coulter and others provide human brain models that indicate abundant connections between lobes, regions, levels and hemispheres. Curriculum theory today acknowledges that there are more facts than anyone can possibly learn. Teaching students to generalize across disciplines is required to face new challenges in our world of rapid change.
Music is a language of sound. The function of any language is to transmit and receive information. Substitute “language” for “music” in the initial statement, and think of the implications. Is the primary justification for language education the intrinsic value of language? Surely it is one justification, but only one among many. Perhaps the primary justification for music education is to prepare students to be musically literate -- to read, write, speak (play/ sing), listen and think in the language of music -- for the purpose of communicating with others. This approach would be welcomed by those frustrated with programs that overemphasize rote performance. Perhaps music educators should focus more on essential components for communicating in the language of music: improvisation and composition.
Even so, can a music program that turns only inward survive? Music is rarely a separate event in our society, but rather part of some other activity. Music is part of the historical and/or cultural makeup of societies. Music communicates information about those who make it - their values, their culture, their interests, sometimes even their terrain! Music is a powerful tool for memorization, and an enormous motivation for some students. The educational and social values of our society’s majority don't support the elitist tone of the initial statement. Many members of society feel awkward around music, a “tribute” to those teachers who disenfranchised anyone who doesn’t want "pure music." Those making decisions about inclusion of music in the curriculum are unlikely to value it for its own sake, and are far more likely to support a program in which there is willingness to broaden the program across disciplines. After all, research suggests that there is a relationship between music and learning in other disciplines. And kids across all grade levels enjoy music opportunities in many formats.
Why should it be more important to teach in, than about and through music? As long as there is systematic, sequential teaching of music concepts and skills for every child, should there not be equal opportunity for all students to learn through music across the curriculum? And should this not be valued equally, when it is the very thing that might enable programs to be supported by the next generation?
(Thanks to Scott Shuler, CT State Fine Arts consultant, for his simply elegant model of teaching in, about, and through the arts.)