I just figured out how to work this thing now... oy... better late than never, I suppose:

Reading for the week of Sept 24th:

In reading the Orzolek article, I have to say that I don't get much sense of accomplishment. In fact, much of what he says seems pretty obvious. By now, with all of the critical pedagogy propaganda here at Westminster, we are all in the mindset that students are the primary focus in education. So why should this be any different for assessment. I do think that it is a good point that assessment should be used to monitor progress, not permanently blotch records. It should be about the students' abilities to monitor them selves, and see growth and progress. However, I feel that this article offers a lot of problem, and little solution.

Brophy tends to be far more technical. There is little of the mushy types of philosophy that offer the ideal situation and the problems that exist in real life without much solution-posing. Brophy tends to offer different styles of assessment, presenting them by order of what they seek to accomplish/solve.

So, I would say that there is less bias in Brophy's text because it is a more straight-forward solution book. It may be a specific perspective on how assessment should happen, but it doesn't not present itself as anything other than just that. Orzolek philosophically summarizes what assessment is as a blanket term, what mission it should have, what problems it does have, and what problems it faces from the outside (or political) aspects of schooling. But, there is no practicality or logistical solution offered, which tend to be the main focus of the Brophy text.

Thought I'd kick off another topic with another article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6547741.stm?ls
"Teaching music is about so much more than learning to play an instrument or spotting the protégés of tomorrow; it's about developing social skills, team work, confidence, co-ordination and creativity. "

Did everyone hear about the substitute teacher who is going to jail?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/01/substitute_teacher_faces_jail.html
I find this so scary! First off this school had a horrible computer set up! Not only was this solely the schools faut because of the computers, the principal reported her to the police! The police made it look like she was trying to show them the porn. Rediculous. But this is a very clear reason why it is important even as the music teacher to have knowledge on computers. What do you all think about this?

"Try also to ignore that the computer in question was a Microsoft Windows 98 machine running an outdated version of Internet Explorer Web browser (IE 5.0), or that the school's license for its firewall program expired prior to the date of the alleged incident. Likewise, the machine's anti-virus software (Cheyenne Software) was expired and it lacked any anti-spyware tools. In short, the Windows 98 computer was completely exposed to the Internet without any kind of protection. "

It is the teachers job to present information to the students of the classroom. It is not their job to decide what music is good or bad for their students so they must present unbiased information at all times. The music that begins to influence the students will also begin to shape their identity. The teacher does not create or influence the identity of the students but they get a chance to view music based on their own musical experiences.

I believe there is a natural progression in every aspect of human life. First, we learn to emulate one another. As infants we emulate the sounds and the movements of those around us in order to learn how to talk, walk, and do the basic functions of life. Over time, we begin to refine this emulations into characteristics that are solely our own. Finally, we take these refined characteristics and find that others have begun to emulate what we have taken as our own. This can easily be applied to our teaching and our classroom. We, in our own learning, emulate those that teach us. As time passes and we find our own way, we begin to refine our teaching to best suit ourselves and not necessarily following what we were taught to the letter. We then find our students emulating aspects of what we do and in turn later being emulated by others. However, this emulation is both a positive and negative aspect of life due to the fact that if we have a poor role model then we have the potential to become a poor role model as well.

1. How can being a teacher lead to changes in one's identity?
When you become a teacher you become a role model, whether you choose to or not. You need to present a professional persona all of the time you are with your students. Often times your students will follow every move you make. You really can't present, do or say anything that you wouldn't want your students to repeat or do themselves. However, I really feel that censoring yourself doesn't have to mean changing your identity. In a position where what you do or say could change the course of a student's life, you have to be very careful, but I don't think you have to change the core of who you are. When you're honest with your students and open up to them, I feel like they'll open up to you. This doesn't mean telling them what you did on your weekend but it does mean letting your personality shine through, you can't expect your students to want to give of themselves unless you're putting yourself out there to them. There are so many ways to be yourself without being inappropriate that why would you have to sacrifice who you are in order to teach?

After class on Monday, the question that I kept thinking about was "How should we as teachers present ourselves to our students?" and "Where do we draw the line of appropriate and inappropriate personal relationships with students?". I know that there are obvious inappropriate relationships with students that we have all seen on the news, but I am talking about simple personal connections we make with our students. Where is the line that we become "too personally connected" with our students. We were talking about how many of us had teachers that confided things in us, and I got to thinking about whether or not this is inappropriate and I can't seem to come up with a good answer. On the one hand, it seems like a great concept to show our "humanness" to our students (that we have problems, successes, failures, etc. just like they do) but on the other hand, it seems like we still need to remain professional and role models for our students. There is a definite conflict here...about where the line is. I think the best answer I could get to on my own is that we should tell our students about our successes, failures, frustrations (to some extent) but not divulge all personal information. Like it or not, we are still professionals providing a service. You would not expect your doctor to confide in you about his/her relationship with his/her spouse or any other truly personal information.

Change. It is something that drives any profession. As a future educator we change small pieces of our teaching style depending on the class. We change the way in which we teach a lesson. These are two of the many things that we change within our field. Over time, these changes will change a teacher's identity I believe. It can be the smallest thing that brings a change or it can be a life-changing event in either the teacher's life or one of their students lives that can be a turning point for the teacher. I believe that every class will effect a teacher in one way or another. I take that back. Any teacher who is open to the change will find that their identity will change as they learn from their students.

When did the music that is listened to by students become so distanced from the music that is taught in school? During the classical period, where teachers still teaching music from the Baroque period? During the early 20th century, were teachers still teaching music from the classical period? As we have read, this disconnection has been documented and critiqued as far back as the early 1900's from John Dewey. How can we as teachers undo so many years of teaching that is disconnected from the students and community in which they live? How are the ideas that we are taught to embrace at Westminster going to create a positive reform in music education when people as far back as Dewey have been trying, and we've only come this far? What more can we do, as music education students, to make a difference instead of just "waiting 'till we can get out there?"

I feel that organizations such as MENC, or Silver Burdett put out simple lessons in hopes to inspire and spark bigger and better ideas in teachers. I feel that the hope of organizations is that teachers will take a simple plan, change and adapt it to their students/class and make it a valuable learning experience. The simple pop lessons on the MENC website are basic, teachers could go so much farther with them, and we discussed a few ways to do that in class. What I feel is the problem is the teachers. Teachers who rely on the book or website and don’t think critically are the ones who need to be reminded that lessons can go further than just what’s in the book. Possibly the book or website could suggest ways to go further, along with the simple lesson so that teachers know they have more options.

As critical teachers, we are constantly forced to re-evaluate ourselves as educators and as human beings. Especially with the articles that we, as music ed. students at Westminster, are asked to read we are constantly taking the ideas of others and seeing how they weigh in our minds, with our beliefs. We spend our class time dialoguing about how these ideas of others affect our way of thinking, or our beliefs. I feel that one's beliefs are a significant part of their identity, and that the thoughts and opinions of others are the main contributors of changing or maintaining those beliefs. We are forced everyday to re-examine how we really feel about something because of what other people tell us "the truth." It is hard to keep your identity constant in this kind of environment, but it is also not necessarily a negative thing. To have ones identity constantly challenged is a frightening thing. Middle schoolers tend to go through the "moody teenage years" when they start to realize that they have an identity and that it will constantly be challenged. Throughout our lives we will be pushed around by peer pressure, and by what is perceived as the accepted and popular norms, and our true identity is the underlying morals and beliefs that we hold constant despite that opposition.

Cait Question 1.
In chapter 1, they have a statement by Dewey saying that he does not support traditional learning. However, in the next sentence Dewey says that he supports independent thinking, but it is critical of those who would stifle it. How can the two sentences coincide with one another? Especially when independent thinking is very much a traditional part of learning in todays society. Thinking independently is nothing new in the 21st century. What do you think Dewey's reaction would be to modern education?


Mike Answer 1.
In my opinion Dewey would be disappointed in the modern educational world. What drastic changes have occurred in the educational field that has affected it across the board. We continue to argue about how the “traditional” methods of banking are less effective then modern practices and yet these traditional views are still held by teachers worldwide. I ask you, where is the independency in modern education? We have the few exceptional teachers with whom freedom and independency is used regularly. As to the first question, the ability to have a class in which the students and the teacher are both comfortable in their abilities to use both teaching models (using the traditional when needed and having the comfort to allow for a “free flowing” class) is the exact way in which the two coincide. We are shown the positive and negative features of both of these styles and know how, when, and where each of them is best used.


Mike Question 1.
On page 23 of the text, the idea of the intellectual in democracy is discussed. At one point it describes music education teachers and undergraduates as being conservative and introverted when it comes to the culture of the day. Within critical pedagogy we discuss the use of popular music in the current classrooms as a way to connect with our students. However, what do we really know about popular music when we leave the walls of this school? We take classes in classical music. Most of our musical repertoire is classical music. Even the classes denoted to teaching music in the 20th century deal primarily with classical music. If we were in the classroom what other examples besides classical music could we compare popular music too? Would we be comfortable discussing in depth the history or effect of jazz or blues and having the students ask us penetrating questions? We can name a piece of classical music, tell you the composer, and say when and for whom it was written by hearing a few short lines, but can we do the same for a piece from the early days of rock and roll? My real question is, what makes us feel that we are fit to call ourselves music teachers when we focus on simply a span of a few hundred years.

Cait Answer 1
I agree in that we are taught by mainly a specific era in time. However, I feel that as music educators we need to go above and beyond what is required for us in a program. Obviously, you will get a students attention more effectively if you play something in the classroom that has just been played on the radio (like 94.5fm) I think that we need to show the similarities between the two music worlds (classical and pop.) I think it is important for students to understand where music came from, and to show them what Bach and Mozart did. But let’s face it; the students in a public school are not in college yet, so therefore, they really do not need to be forced to learn about the classical era in such a depth manner. I think that if we really want to build the music programs in schools and keep them going, you have to teach music to what the students listen to in their free time. Once you have their respect and dedication to the program (say mid way through the year) then you can go back and teach the classical era. But I think teaching about Beethoven right off the bat gears students away from music, because it bores them. I feel that this part of teaching is all a matter of perfect timing.

Mike Question 2.
Dewey notes in chapter 1 of text that democracy in the world is a rather new idea. For centuries the new ideas in music education was always defined by the old. In this democratic world that we now live in, why is it that the idea of democracy is only just being applied to the classroom? Why is it that we have gone this long before coming to the realization that in order to create a democratic and intelligent people, we must allow people to discover what it means to be democratic in their schooling as well as their everyday lives?

Cait Answer 2
Wow that’s a really good question. I don’t know why it has taken so long for us to start being democratic in our teaching. Perhaps it is because philosophers and professors have always looked at education as an educational view or as a theory. I don’t think people really ever realized that politics and democracy play a huge role in education. I think that people view democracy as a tool that is used in politics and governments. I almost think that people are afraid of using democracy in education because it is something new. And usually humans’ first instinct to something new is to shut it out or shy away from it. Perhaps this is why it has taken so long for democracy to finally hit the schools.

Cait Question 2
Since I am on a kick about politics. How/When should a teacher know when to introduce their own political views and when ethics should over ride those views? Should a teacher feel free to express their feelings of democracy, freedom of speech, and world-views to the students? Or should personal ethics state that the views of a teacher be left totally out of the classroom?

Mike Answer 2.
I believe that the ethics of political views in the classroom is a rather sticky issue. True, things dealing with how a teacher feels about a certain government official or their feelings upon say the war are things that should be kept out of the classroom. However, their views on education are going to come out in their teaching whether consciously or unconsciously. These views are the basis of the teachers work and are important to how effective the teacher is. So I suppose what I am saying is that ethically any non-educational political views should be set aside from the class.

On page 3 Woodford wrote that "Dewey envisioned a community of cooperative inquirers with each individual empowered to contribute according to his or her own abilties in a spirit of service to others". Is this ideal realistic or even possible on today's public schools?

Lindsay,
On page 14 of the text, Woodford states that the rise in leftist and feminist scholarship had music educators questioning the morality and social importance of their musical and educational actions. What influences have music educators questioning the morality and social importance of music today?

To Dan:

As I was reading a certain quote stuck out to me. He states: whereas previously the purpose of music education had been to train future musicians and music teachers, it now became the development of all children's musical abilities such that they were able to "make cultural use of leisure time." I agree that music education should not just be to train students to become musicians and teachers, but is music just a "cultural use of leisure time"?

To Dan:

On page 20 in the Woodford book he states that " One engages in criticism not so much to compare and compete for superiority but to understand." Do you feel that criticism is the best way to learn? Criticism in many ways helps you to learn about your own opinions by being able to critically think. In other ways does criticism take away from your own personal identities about music and standardize it? In order to criticize don't you need to have a standard?