TubeNet

I acknowledge that this story has a bit of political content, but that's not why I'm posting it. I'm more concerned what this phenomenon is going to do to the numbers of future fine music audiences:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Thousands of schools across the nation are responding to the reading and math testing requirements laid out in No Child Left Behind, President Bush's signature education law, by reducing class time spent on other subjects and, for some low proficiency students, eliminating it.

Whole article here:

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3640983

and

http://www.menc.org/information/legisla ... sults.html
http://www.musiceducationmadness.com/nclb.shtml

This could mean that performance students getting a Mus Ed degree as a "fallback" may not be such a hot idea.

Discuss?

Exactly! In the district where I have been working for the past six years (not as a music teacher), there used to be general music, chorus, and band starting at Grade 4. Three years ago, Grade 6 was moved to junior high (I still use the old term) and the General Music teachers were laid off, never to return, unless they came back as general classroom teachers. Instrumental Music teachers could now relax, because all of their classes would be at one school. One new junior high was built, one Instrumental Music teacher died, and they still laid off one Instrumental Music teacher--there are now only five Instrumental Music teachers in a school district with three high schools and three junior highs.

It is logical to oil the squeeky wheel. Rr, to be less metaphoric, to put your resources where they are needed most. Underperforming... or even illiterate students appear to many as our students with the greatest need. Indeed, these students are the most in need. But in need of what?

According to common strategies at getting underperforming students to do better on tests, the "need" is more time on task. If an hour a day isn't enough to get them reading, then surely 2-3 more hours should do the trick... right? This is a very flawed concept.

If you look at the research that prompted the writing of "A nation at risk (NAR)" you would find correlations that have been totally ignored in NAR. Specically the place of the Arts in education. In all of the countries that did well on the math tests, the arts are also strong. Japan, Holland, Hungary and all the others have extensive music and arts teaching in the schools. Not usually bands or orchestras, but rather music history, appreciation, guitar playing, etc. But still art and music teaching did highly correlate with higher math scores.

Even in the US this is the case. The best academic schools also have strong arts programs. This is especially the case in low SES schools and those with high minority populations.

Clearly, denying an aesthetic education in favor of more hours doing the same thing won't work. In fact, all that does is increases the drop out rate.

The obvious way to get better learning is to have better teachers. As obvious as this seems, we don't place our students with greater needs with the better teachers. The best teachers get to teach advanced classes with students who want to learn. It is the first year teachers who get stuck with the ones who don't want to be there or have exceptional needs.

There have been many studies and dissertations on the topic. Despite a well developed body of literature that supports effective ways to teach, it is politicians and those who fund them that still make education policy. Not those who actually know a thing or two about teaching and lerning. Kids are not just a business. The industrial revolution has no application in the classroom. Try as we might, we just can't manufacture McStudents.

I realize that every year there is some new educational trent that we MUST have. We will always ebb and flow between conservative and progressive educational ideologies. However, it doesn't take a smarty-pants PhD to figure out that a double dose of what doesn't work won't change the result, at least not in a positive way.

I was in one of the better electronics stores the other day and saw a young man (about 22) listening to static on a home stereo system.

"Man, this sounds good. I'll buy it!"

When he left, I asked the clerk if that was for real. He looked at me as if I were from Mars.

"That's the most popular song with the kids these days!"

Static.

We need aesthetical education!!!

LoyalTubist wrote:"That's the most popular song with the kids these days!"

Static.

So there is hope for my playing, yet!

There is a very funny Mercedes-Benz radio commercial (I think they only play it in Southern California) in which a really bad singer goes into a recording studio and sounds awful. She records her song, they record it, the engineer says, "That was great!" Then he plays back the recording and it sounds beautiful.

I wonder if only those of us who are musically-inclined get that joke...

I don't disagree at all about the negative impact of NCLB on the arts, but *climbing up on soapbox*

If you want to perform music, be a performance major.
If you want to teach music, be an ed major.

Ed is NOT a "fallback" position. Teach in the schools with some enthusiasm. Maybe that's why we are where we are.

If you want a "fallback", teach privately.

Play like you mean it, and teach like you mean it!

define fallback for me please........do you mean back (something to resort to because its the only way to get paid) , or do you mean fallback as worse?.......or both

Something to resort to... and [anyone's] heart really isn't in it.