Who Are the Music Teacher Educators? Part II

P–12 Educators as Teacher Educators ¹

They are critical in getting students into our programs—so the more we can work with them to communicate to kids the how and why to become music teachers, the better.

Most music teachers begin their development as teachers long before they ever enter into a music teacher education program. Some have known that they wanted to be music teachers since elementary school. Most have taught some private lessons and held leadership roles in their high school music programs as ensemble officers, sectional leaders, drum majors, and peer teachers. Music education majors regularly credit a music teacher from their past as their primary reason for majoring in music. Fredrickson and Burton (2005) suggested that “Current music teachers may be the best recruiters the profession has. They exert a great deal of influence that could positively affect the recruiting of future music teachers” (Bergee et al., 2001, pp. 30–31).

In addition to their positive impact as recruiters, there also can be some negative influence. I work with many undergraduate performance majors in a course on teaching private lessons and often hear that a school music teacher discouraged them from becoming a music education major. Student teachers also share stories of teachers in their buildings (not usually the music cooperating teacher) discouraging them from becoming teachers. I do understand that in this post-COVID era, many P–12 schools have faced challenging circumstances. However, postsecondary education-based teacher educators need to stay in close communication with P–12 colleagues to be sure they understand the strong (and possibly unintended) influence they have on music student career choices. P–12 colleagues need to be reminded that even for their most “talented” (do not love that word but it is still out there) music students, a career as a music educator is one of the most viable ways to make a contribution to the arts.

P–12 teachers also are important within the phenomena historically referred to as the “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975). Music students enter into a preservice teacher preparation program after many years as students in P–12 music programs. The influence that P–12 music teachers have over the music teacher that their former students may become is substantial. Research has suggested that preservice teachers’ observations of teaching done previous to entering a teacher education program through the apprenticeship of observation are at least as powerful as what is learned in the entire undergraduate education degree (Cochran-Smith et al., 2008). This finding should inspire postsecondary teacher educators to continue to be in dialogue with P–12 colleagues regarding the musicianship-focused goals of a P–12 program beyond competitions and performance and including varied opportunities for music-making, music-listening, and creating music. There is also a need to focus conversations and instructional modeling on the relational pedagogies (i.e., culturally responsive and trauma-informed) that need to be modeled in classrooms so that teachers understand the importance of positive relationships with students beyond only the musical goals.

P–12 Teachers Hosting Observers and Interns as Teacher Educators ²

Music education can be so much more than the ensemble that you came from.

Most of our teacher education programs require students to do observations in P–12 schools previous to student teaching. I suggested in the Handbook for the Music Mentor that the goals of these observations typically include (a) broadening the student’s notion of “music teacher”; (b) assisting the undergraduate student in beginning to understand the importance of context in teaching; (c) moving the preservice teacher from dualistic to relativistic thinking; (d) providing an authentic bridge between music education theory and practice; (e) encouraging the undergraduate music education student to reflect upon the musical and educational skills needed to be an effective music teacher; and (f) beginning to develop the music teacher professionalism and identity needed for future success.

The P–12 teachers who host observers need to be made aware of these goals, particularly given that many students often complete observation hours on their own time, without faculty members in attendance to guide their observations. The site-based music teacher may be one of the first “teacher educators” to greet the music education major in a classroom outside the one that they (the preservice teacher) attended as a student. I documented over 20 years ago that observations were perceived by new teachers as both the “worst” thing in their music teacher education program and the “best” thing in their music teacher education program (Conway, 2002). If it was clear to them what the goal of the observation was, and they had positive interactions with music teachers at the site, then the classroom experience was great. But, if not, preservice music educators found it a waste of time. As I have followed those new teachers over the past 20 years (Conway, 2012, 2022), this finding has continued to be a discussion as the now 20+ year experienced teachers are working to host observers of their own and sometimes struggling to find the time to collaborate with the university (the struggle is on both sides) on the goals of these novices’ experience in the classroom.

In addition to required observation hours, many music teacher education programs offer and/or require fieldwork internships as part of coursework in many, if not most, music education classes. Conway et al. (2010) suggested that these short teaching experiences provide what we called “kid face time” along with opportunities to plan short lessons and assessments, experience issues of classroom management, and encounter issues of pacing of instruction in short durations with the help of a P–12 cooperating teacher. These field experiences also represent an opportunity to formulate one’s teacher personality and sense of teacher identity. Powell’s (2019) recent review of the literature on field experience specifically highlighted its value in developing teacher identity and the development of a “symbiotic relationship” (Powell, 2019, p. 486) between performer and teacher identities (Haston & Russell, 2012; Pellegrino, 2019). Powell (2019) suggested,

Field experience should be a shared endeavor among preservice music teachers, music teacher educators, P-12 music teachers, P-12 music students, and other community members, and should be critically examined with regard to their aims, goals, and objectives. (p. 499)

Our JMTE Editorial Board focus group in 2023 focused on similar ideas. A comment was shared that P–12 educators are sometimes “restricted by traditions of their settings.” The group also shared challenges in communicating with fieldwork teachers due to their P–12 schedules as well as university teacher educator schedule. Participants suggested that it is often difficult to connect “what we are learning about in class right now” with what is occurring in fieldwork. Chris Baumgartner from the University of Oklahoma shared in the Zoom chat,

SO much responsibility/trust is placed in our CTs that I think we really need to do more to better prepare/support/develop them as they mentor our preservice teachers in these formative experiences of the undergraduate degree.

P–12 Teachers Mentoring Student Teachers as Teacher Educators

It is hard to balance the ones who won’t give up any time for their student teacher to try/possibly fail with the ones who are like ‘kiddo, you’re on your own.’

Within general education, Clarke et al. (2014) examined 185 research studies and organized them into 11 categories representing the ways in which cooperating teachers ³ participate in teacher education including feedback providers, gatekeepers, modelers, supporters of reflection, gleaners of knowledge, purveyors of context, conveners of relation, agents of socialization, advocates of the practical, abiders of change, and teachers of children. Several recent music education studies have utilized this framework (Abramo & Campbell, 2019; Baugh & Conway, 2024; Palmer, 2018; Pennello, 2020) and suggested it is useful in considering the many positive ways in which cooperating teachers are teacher educators.

The JMTE focus group discussed how teacher educators choose and match cooperating teachers with student teachers (Russell, 2019). The conversation began when one participant mentioned how difficult it can be to “rotate out” cooperating teachers “who might no longer be serving our students.” We then went on to share ways to intersect with new cooperating teachers instead of relying on alumni or those who have historically served in this role. There was mention of collaborating with university ensemble colleagues who go out and clinic ensembles as well as recruiting cooperating teachers at state conferences and other professional development events. Several on the Zoom call mentioned they try to do clinics and professional development workshops to meet more teachers. That conversation ended with a laugh, given the comment, “Getting out beyond campus -how do we get the time to do that?”

Other challenges beyond time and scheduling were also discussed in the JMTE group. There was mention of the role of lesson planning and “how it changes throughout the career” leading to difficulties for student teachers who need to plan more than they sometimes see modeled by experienced cooperating teachers. Concerns regarding cooperating teachers who are “dismissive about access, diversity, equity, inclusion, and expanding their programs to be more responsive” and who were “stuck in a particular way of doing things” were shared.

The last portion of the JMTE focus group included discussion of observations of the student teachers and relationships with both the cooperating teachers and external supervisors who sometimes work for the university as student teacher observers. There was agreement that sometimes observations can feel “staged” to present “what the music teacher educator ‘wants to see.’” Cara Bernard and Joseph Abramo work together in the teacher education program at the University of Connecticut and discussed the challenges of “working with the cooperating teachers and university supervisors consistently to communicate what’s happening in our classes, our values, and helping connect them [university class content and university values] with what’s happening in their settings/school policies and practices.”

Conclusion

Keep in mind how busy these cooperating teachers are!

The teacher educators on the call shared some specific suggestions for successful collaborations with our P–12 teacher colleagues. Comments from the Zoom chat included (a) communicating with district-level music administrators (in those fortunate states that have these individuals) about students’ needs and asking them for advice on placements within the district; (b) helping students know in advance that what the cooperating teacher does will be different than what they (preservice teacher) necessarily learned in school and that this is not a bad thing; and (c) reminding students to continue to work to develop a deeper teacher identity during student teaching by trying on “more things.”

My appreciation again to the JMTE board members who shared their responses to the question of “Who are the Teacher Educators?” Now that I have examined the rest of the school or department of music (Part I on this column) and the P–12 teachers (this column), the next From the Editor column will discuss the preparation of music teacher educators in their graduate school experiences and draw on literature from teacher education at large as well as some of the work of the Music Teacher Educators ASPA. Stay-tuned!