Abstract
As Music Educators Journal celebrates its centennial, it is appropriate to look back over the past century to see how advocacy in music education has evolved. Of the more than 200 submitted articles on advocacy, four main themes emerged: music education in community, the relevancy of music education, the value of music education, and the perpetual nature of advocacy. These themes were presented in the context of previous articles and then blended to create a platform from which current practitioners can work to promote music instruction in schools.
Music educators and those who support them have a history of needing to advocate for the study of music in the school curriculum.
As Music Educators Journal (MEJ), originally titled the Music Supervisors’ Bulletin, celebrates its 100th anniversary, it is appropriate to take a moment and walk through the past century to see the ways in which MEJ has evolved over the decades. With over 650 issues and thousands of articles, MEJ serves as an important tool for those active in the music education enterprise to learn, share, reflect, celebrate, and challenge our practices and beliefs. Accordingly, MEJ also serves as a guide for the many ways in which music educators can advocate for music in the schools.
The ability to advocate for one’s music program is paramount to sustaining its support and success. Educating students, parents, administrators, policy makers, and community members alike about the importance of a sequential musical education can not only prevent program cuts in times of financial crisis, but can help to ensure that programs thrive for years to come.
Over the past 100 years, advocacy has been a frequent topic in MEJ. While we may be tempted to look at the past through rose-colored glasses, the reality is that issues surrounding the need to advocate for our programs have existed throughout the history of music education in the United States. The challenges we face today are much like those faced by previous generations of music educators.
Beginning with the inaugural issue of MEJ, we surveyed each issue and reviewed articles related to advocacy in music education. Of these nearly 200 articles, the most frequent topics centered on themes surrounding: relevancy, community, value of music education, and the perpetual nature of advocacy. In this article, we will examine these themes and the ways in which they affect advocacy and the modern music educator.
Relevancy
Music educators have a passion for and value the study of music. But, how does one convince others to share this passion? Music educators must connect their curricula to the lives of the students, parents, administrators, and community members that they are serving.
The ability to relate to our students’ interests and lives is hardly a new phenomenon. While popular culture may change, the young person’s desire to establish his or her own “self” through fashion, language, and music is a constant. However, as the cultural demographics of our nation have changed, so have the repertoire, instruments, and resources we use to teach music to our diverse body of students.
Some have posited that “traditional” instruments (e.g., piano, violin, or flute) or genres (opera, classical music, etc.) are irrelevant to today’s young people. Others say that students today do not have the interest or time needed to develop strong performance skills on such instruments and music. This concern is not new. In 1933, William Arms Fisher, former president of the Music Teachers National Association, expressed a similar concern that the “revolt of youth” had led to a decline in the number of children studying piano, which he reasoned was the consequence of an overemphasis of virtuosity. Rather than studying the piano as “an instrument from which to draw music,” it was instead perceived to be “an irritating contraption for the tedious development of finger dexterity.” 1
Fisher encouraged music educators to widen the appeal of music by getting away from what he described as its “egotistic” performance practices, where the “concert giver [says], ‘here I am,’ ‘watch me,’ ‘listen to me.’” 2 Rather than taking students to attend concerts where they would sit stiffly as music recipients, Fisher advocated that children experience participatory music, not just at school, but also in the home. As he explained, “surely it is better to be merry with saxophones than smug and solemnly exclusive with classical ponderousness.” 3 Many others have since echoed this sentiment, among the most recent being assistant professor of music education at Arizona State University Evan Tobias, who encouraged readers in 2013 to explore digital platforms to discover contemporary ways that participatory music can be used to create relevant and meaningful musical experiences for their students. 4
Like Fisher and Tobias, many music educators recognize that not every child wishes to perform in a band, choir, or orchestra. However, after elementary school, many students are limited to one of those three course offerings. The question has been asked often in MEJ over the past 100 years: How do we reach the students who are not enrolled in a music course? 5
Reminding others (and ourselves) that school music is not just for the talented but also for everyone has been an important part of the advocacy strategies employed by music educators. For example, in 1961, Gladys Tipton, then director of music at Illinois State University, reminded music educators that “the musical riches of the world, past and present, are the cultural heritage of every child.” 6 Tipton continued to explain her belief that no child should be a “musical have-not.” 7 For Tipton, a relevant musical education did not necessarily take the form of a large ensemble. Instead, she advocated for the expansion of music education opportunities that did not require the learner to perform. Additionally, she encouraged changes to music educator preparation programs, suggesting that new music educators should “receive as much and as good a preparation for teaching general music, as they ordinarily receive in conducting expertly a choir or orchestra or band.” 8
This call for relevant course offerings that serve as an alternative for students not interested in choir, orchestra, or band has been echoed by others, often in the form of a prompt for “change.” Such change has led to the expansion of music education curricula at all levels to include nonperformance mediums like general music and electronic music, but also performance studies in: guitar, keyboard, mariachi, steel band, world drumming, and popular music, just to name a few. 9 This may be concerning to some educators, as many of our musical traditions run deep, with roots dating back hundreds of years. In 2010, music education philosopher Estelle Jorgensen attempted to relieve some of the anxiety music educators may feel regarding such change. In her article “School Music Education and Change,” she discussed that talk of change may leave a music educator feeling uncomfortable, or possessing a “sense of inadequacy.” 10 Jorgensen suggested that in such times it is important to remember that music is a part of all of our students’ lives in some capacity. Music education can remain relevant and valuable if educators strive to uncover the ways in which they can connect their students’ own musical preferences and experiences to other musics that are also worthy of study. In turn, rich connections can be made and music can continue to be an important element of every child’s education.
Community
A second theme that has been prevalent in advocacy over the past century is that community support for music education is essential for music’s continued presence in schools. As early as 1932, contributors to the MEJ brought to light the connections that should exist between music within schools and the musical culture of the surrounding community. Former MEJ Editorial Board chairman C. M. Dennis asserted in his article “What of Our Future?” that school music is taught and refined at a high level within the classroom; however, this artistic development should expand beyond school grounds to the benefit of the entire community. As the country worked to emerge from the volatile years of the Great Depression, the political and economic undertones in his suggestions were quite clear:
It must be admitted that the community and social musical activities have not been stimulated to the same degree that school music has developed. Would it not be wise for us to recognize this and discover a remedy before the taxpayers find out?
11
The idea of community support continued to grow in subsequent decades as contributors wrote of ways to create a musical community that could potentially serve as a method of bolstering community support for music education. In his 1944 article “Integrating School Music with Community Life,” former Massachusetts state chairman for music education Robert Sault reflected on his career as a music educator in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Sault suggested that community involvement through concerts and educational outreach—he termed these annual events “concerts with a specific aim”—served to educate and recruit young people to become musicians in school. He went on to state that the work of a music educator should extend beyond the classroom. In his words, “[music education] should have a broader horizon than the schoolroom.” 12 Today, informances serve a similar purpose—to showcase student achievements while also educating audiences about the benefits and value of a musical education. 13
Over time, community outreach extended beyond educating a musical audience to informing a wider spectrum of community about music education. In 1972, MEJ dedicated a large portion of its January issue to the multifaceted issue of music education and the community. One article by Joan Gaines, then director of the Music Educators National Conference (MENC, now the National Association for Music Education) public relations program, presented specific action points on the topics that were developed at a MENC public relations workshop. These included:
What does community support mean?
We need to sell music education instead of leaving music to sell itself.
We need to communicate so people can hear and understand us.
We need to examine our contacts and how we maintain them.
We need to speak up! 14
Gaines also presented numerous perspectives about music education from community leaders in varying demographic areas. The information gathered assisted the MENC to craft the following statement that still applies today:
School, student, community, and political leaders, parents, and the media must be linked in an informed effort. The most appropriate initiator is the music educator, stimulating and coordinating other forces to achieve results. The music educator must become engaged in two-way communication with the community, so that the value people place on music and concern they have for the young can be channeled into active support for music education. Communicate; then link for action. This is the public relations approach.
15
Again, history presents us with a reminder that for music education and its advocacy to be effective, we must be action oriented. Creating connections and relationships beyond the musical content of our classroom is essential for the long-term sustainability of the field.
Value of Music Education
Related to the themes of relevance and community involvement is one of justification. As music instruction slowly became of a part of daily instruction in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, concerns over how to measure its success and purpose in a child’s general education followed quickly. In 1921, William Earhart, an early pioneer in the promotion of music education, suggested in his article titled, “Is Instrumental Music Education in the Schools Justified by Its Actual Results?” that school music was too new a subject to provide measurable results. In short, Earhart stressed that a lack of time and data—two timely topics even today—make measuring music’s success difficult. 16 Twelve years later, Earhart expanded his discussion of the justification of music in the schools by stating that music is justified because it engages students in three areas: aesthetic, educational/intellectual, and social. Eventually, Earhart added, music would be valued “by all creeds of people,” effectively removing the need for the ongoing conversation about the place of music education. 17 Although Earhart’s belief of universal appreciation and value of music in education may formalize itself sometime in the future, articles from the subsequent decades of the twentieth and early 21st centuries suggest that such justification is still an important topic.
Previous editors of MEJ also recognized that everything old is new again. For MEJ’s fiftieth anniversary in 1964, editors ran reprints of two articles from the first years of the publication. Peter Dykema’s and Charles Farnsworth’s articles from the “For Use in Your Local Paper” series in 1918 and 1919, respectively, were presented to remind readers that promoting music in the schools is an ongoing process. In their original commentaries, Dykema and Farnsworth provided suggestions, strategies, and talking points for music educators to use when speaking to administrators and town officials. These included promoting music within the family, electing music-friendly lawmakers, and a more widespread use of music in the workplace. 18 Decades later, readers saw similar types of reminders in retired Kansas music teacher Marilyn Foree’s 1992 article “PR Means Positive Results” and University of Delaware music education Suzanne Burton’s 2004 contribution, “Educate Our Advocates!” Both authors urged music educators to make certain that administrators understood the details of their music programs. These details included: enrollment, numbers and location of performances each year, student participation in large and small adjudicated events, invited guests, and the music educator’s professional development activities. The authors also stressed the importance of establishing oneself as a part of the community of one’s school campus, an issue still relevant today. 19 By letting other teachers in the school know how much you value them as professionals while also showing support for music students’ nonmusical endeavors, music educators will most likely find themselves the recipient of others’ appreciation and support.
The justification of music education is both a historical and a contemporary phenomenon. The topic has evolved as our local and national cultures evolved. In 1991, Karl Glenn, then president of MENC, wrote that music educators must reevaluate their overall philosophy in order to articulate pertinent topics and issues to those outside music. Glenn suggested that justifying music because of its nonmusical benefits (e.g., academic enhancement, social interaction, etc.) must give way to a new type of discussion. 20 Shaping advocacy and justification points by focusing on educational policy concerns (e.g., staffing and budgetary issues) and the intrinsic value of music provided new talking points and perspectives for music educators. In a contemporary setting, this platform is evident in the way that politics has entered into the music education dialogue. In the hotly contested 2004 election year, music education’s potential political influence was made clear. In the lead article from the November issue, “Electing Music Advocates,” Douglas C. Orzolek, who teaches music at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, advised music educators to become involved in the political process as a way to prevent the crises that historically endanger music programs. By screening candidates to determine their positions on the arts, their previous musical experience, and the extent to which they understand how the arts are funded in public schools, music educators can now play a proactive rather than a reactive role in the decision-making process. 21
The Perpetual Nature of Advocacy
One final and broad theme that emerged from surveying each issue of MEJ is that music education advocacy is a constant. It is not a problem to be solved, but rather a facet of our profession that must be nurtured for the benefit of all involved. From the very first year of MEJ’s existence, when authors Karl Gherkens and Peter Dykema asked the question, “What is the purpose of music in our schools?” 22 to nearly 100 years and 200 advocacy articles later when the current Academic Editor Patrick K. Freer presented challenging questions about advocacy—“Advocacy for What? To Whom?”—important philosophical and practical questions continue to be presented to MEJ’s readers. For example, Freer suggested that advocacy is a complex topic because there is a lack of consensus in deciding upon what to advocate for and to whom the message is intended. 23
Music educators should take some solace in the notion that music education advocacy is a continuous endeavor. By knowing that advocating for our programs will never be truly “finished,” we can begin to accept that we will never feel completely stabilized. For more than a hundred years, music teachers have felt pressure to advocate for our subject matter. And yet, while there are countless challenges to our society and our field, we still continue to work for a musical education for every child.
Rather than view advocacy as just another task to complete, consider it as a representation of what we hope music education can become. As music education historian Michael Mark explains, “advocacy does not drive the profession; rather, it reflects music educators’ beliefs, purposes, and accomplishments.” 24 Our past has created the present moment in which we function as educators. While the dialogue and actions of our predecessors has moved our field forward, we must continue to reflect on current practice to remain viable and provide our students with a high-quality music education.