Ian Shirley - In support of the music specialist
In support of the music specialist
In recent years it has become evident that many schools rely on the QCA schemes of work (QCA, 2000) to determine their curriculum framework. Under pressure, and often lacking specialist advice on site, it seems that schools are uncertain how to personalise these schemes of work to suit their own local need, adopting the programmes wholesale without interpretation or re-configuration. The result is a rather slavish adherence to the given structure, in the case of music, reducing music education to a technical study of its constituent parts. The difficulty appears to be in the gap between the technical instruction given in the scheme of work (this applies to certain published schemes as well) and the quality of music making that occurs in the classroom.
In this editorial, it is not my intention open-up this old wound in a destructive sense. It is a joy that so many schools are trying so hard to engage in music education. My intention is purely to raise bigger questions about where we might go from here, for despite the wealth of musical opportunities, the projects, the events, the whole-class teaching, the national drive on singing, something important appears to be missing.
Something that is long-term, of substance; something that bonds music education as a coherent whole, cementing music as a cultural activity at the very core of school life. This, I suspect, is something that calls on the special pedagogical expertise of the authentic and highly skilled music specialist.
Recently, I have been reading the work of Ernst von Glaserfeld on Radical Constructivism (von Glaserfeld, 2001). Simply put, this is a view of learning that acknowledges that constructivism isn’t merely a pedagogical option, but a fundamental principle that cannot be denied. Von Glaserfeld suggests two important principles: first, there is no truth. Whatever is understood by humans is simply a human construction. Trees, clouds, hills, whatever you like to think, are simply facets of this place (only) we call Earth. These interpretations have no truth beyond human beings, and we should be aware that such interpretation is limited to human understanding. Secondly, von Glaserfeld suggests that learning can be understood in two ways: conventions that are simply learnt and cannot be derived ‘conceptually’ – sequence of numbers, days of the week etc. Conceptual learning, on the other hand, cannot be learnt by rote. Learners only gain such understanding through a process of accommodation and assimilation, where conceptualisations are revised and re-constructed, as Piaget would advocate, until equilibration (satisfaction with one’s own conceptual understanding) is achieved.
Clearly, this is an extreme view but it did cause me to consider how children construct their own musical understanding, particularly where the focus on technical language (the musical elements, for example) has become the holding form. In many of my experiences, with students, who have little experience of participating in musical activity, yet who try so hard to teach music to their classes, the one thing that is nearly always missing is the inherent musicality of the lesson. The focus is often on the technical, and in many cases, the student is reluctant to allow the children to begin making music. This is hardly surprising as few students get to observe quality music teaching on a regular basis. What provision there is often focuses on the elevation of the technical and the absence of the essence(tial): in this case, the essence of music as a human activity. Worse, the event is reduced to an exercise in behaviour management. Let’s put aside for the moment the impact such teaching has on children’s conceptual learning in music. Consider instead the impact of such experiences have on students’ conceptual understanding of music education. We should not assume that such experiences are neutral in the construction of pedagogical understanding.
While there are technical features of music that need to be rehearsed, the essence is only to be really understood through making music (what has been called ‘musicking’). In music a single sound is uttered, with a specific gesture, and in relation to other single sounds, and through the product of our own enculturation we understand the group of sounds as a musical event. The music isn’t a truth, and those from beyond our culture would have little understanding of the nuance. Yet, the music moves us, and we are able to engage in such music together with others: a musical discourse in which musicians participate at the same time. Phenomenal! For despite the fact that music is only experienced in the mind as an act of enculturation, somehow it takes on a very real personality that causes us to cry, to smile, to hold our breath through a kind of sonic space-time continuum.
This is what music is: not a set of terms, or devices for recording. Not an industry or a product that is passively received. Music is about musical behaviour and music education is about the construction of musical understanding, through a wide range of experiences in which skills, dispositions, values and attitudes towards music are nurtured and challenged. The essence of training music teachers has to lie in deconstructing the learning process in order to understand how musicians learn. Any attempt to reduce music to something that is simply technical or theoretical, to my mind at least, misses the very point of what we are trying to achieve within the subject. Furthermore, any approach to music making that elevates the facilitator’s actions as superior to the child’s actions simply confirms the view of children’s musical inferiority, an issue raised most eloquently by Young (2009). What is preferable, I suggest, is a musical community in which children (and where possible adults) engage in a sustained and experiential programme of musical activity. Such a community, I would argue, is best facilitated by a skilled music specialist situated, where possible, within the school.
For von Glaserfeld (2001) (musical) development is facilitated by personal reflection on (musical) experiences: coming to understand, for example, the implication of a gesture, or a technique, or a musical genre, through experience, and through the contribution of those who make music with us. For this reason, von Glaserfeld offers some guidance for teachers, which I have repeated here, with a musical orientation, and with much provisionality:
1. Music teaching should provide children with the opportunity to think musically.
2. Teachers require a diverse pedagogy that focuses on the musical experience in which musicality develops. He suggests that to rely on a ready-made conceptualisation (e.g. musical ‘elements’) is to obscure that which will stimulate children’s’ spontaneous interest in music.
3. Teachers must accept that children will engage in music in a way that fits their current level of experience and understanding. How teachers respond will have a significant impact on the construction of individual musical identity.
4. It should be expected that children will develop naive conceptions of musical terms and gestures. Teachers should find opportunities to notice children’s conceptual terms as naive conceptions of the language indicate something of their understanding of the musical phenomenon.
5. Personal reflection is important for both the teacher and the child. While we can’t verbalise the musical aesthetic we can reflect on our experience of making music. Through such reflection we learn to manage our musical behaviour – the nature of practise, preferred musical styles, openness to new experiences, and the musical community we belong to. In a similar vein to Wenger’s (1999) idea of the ‘Community of Practice’ real musicians engage in behaviours and discourses that set them apart as musicians. Here is the essence of music education: musical learning involves the active participation in making, exploring, and experiencing music.
Musical development, like any other form of development, does not come about through a process of transmission, and dissemination of information. We cannot deliver musical learning, nor can we assume that children bank that which we think we have taught them. Children come to music with a rich background of musical experiences, tastes, attitudes, values and disposition. The construction of their musical learning has already begun. Young children have no notion of being ‘un-musical’ and it is only through their education that such barriers are raised. It is for us to over-come these barriers in setting free the musicality that is innate within all children. This, I believe, can only be achieved through a very musical ‘music education’. Much has been said recently about the role of the specialist in primary education (Alexander, 2010). The most recent and thorough examination of primary education, The Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander, 2010) states ‘Children appreciate that when a teacher knows a subject inside out, lessons are more stimulating, informative and engaging’, (Alexander, 2010: 36). To know music inside out, I suspect, means to know something of the challenge, the opportunity, the processes, the behaviours, the discourses and the dispositions that are inherent in musical activity.
What we seek, perhaps, is the re-instatement of the music specialists: teachers who have, first, the pedagogical expertise and secondly, the musical awareness to steer music provision in every primary school. Such specialists…..
• can establish a curriculum that is locally relevant.
• can embed music projects and workshop opportunities into a continuum of experience that lasts throughout the primary phase.
• can support enthusiastic class- teachers as they try to make sense of the printed word, translating the text of instruction into a powerful musical experience.
• perceive music as an inclusive activity that involves the whole community.
• have at least equal status with secondary music teachers.
• are reflective and focussed on the interests of the musician within every child.
Perhaps the subject specialist will re-emerge in initial teacher education, or perhaps, the new Masters in Teaching and Learning options will provide a vehicle to the re-emergence of the species. What is required is a navigator: someone who can make sense of the text of a curriculum framework so that schools develop music provision that is locally relevant and thoroughly musical. The following words of Ofsted’s most recent report on music education seem a most fitting finale:
The quality of subject leadership, and the extent of the support, challenge and professional development which leaders were able to provide, were the most important factors in improving provision in primary schools.
(Ofsted, 2009)
References:
Glaserfeld, E. von, (2001) Radical constructivism and teaching. Prospects 31 (2). 161-173.
Alexander, R. (Ed) (2009) Introducing the Cambridge Primary Review. Available at:
http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/index.html (accessed May 2nd 2010_.
Ofsted. 2009. Making more of music. London: Ofsted. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/Making-more-of-music-an-evaluation-of-music-in-schools-2005-08 (accessed May 3rd, 2010).
QCA (2000) Schemes of work for Music. London: DfES Publications
Young, S. (2009) No turning back. Primary Music Today 43: 14(3)
