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?

Sandy!

On page 20 of the text, Woodford presents the view that, "In the absence of criticism and without at least the possibility of dissent, there can be no freedom of musical expression and no real understanding or productive change, just sentimentalism, self-indulgence, dogma, passive acceptance, or complacency." To a point I definitely agree with this, but it is always necessarily such a bad thing, to not have criticism? Is it a problem to just sing or play an instrument simply because you love to do so, to perform or practice simply for that sentimentalism? I think this quote really ties in to the discussions that we have had both in CPIII and Practicum about performance based music education versus non-performance based music education. Do you think its possible to produce a change in the music if we don't have criticism? The way that this quote says "...just sentimentalism, self-indulgence.." to me seems like it is almost negating the importance of of sentimentalism and self-indulgence in music, which to me is so much of the point of music. How do you feel about this quotation?

Many interesting concepts are addressed in this article. Branching off what Woodford was discussing in regards to music’s role and uses, and what Liz proposed as a moral question~ I feel that so much is expressed in music, and is ultimately its' purpose (in most cases) that it would be naive not to address the fact that music is there to provoke, invoke and evoke. Now, when we do go into this territory, we enter a world that is no longer factual and can often lead to flares in emotion and personal situations. We all know that right now, we live in a world that is in upheaval. Our society is torn by politics, and moral values, and many things of the. There will be students in your classroom who are strongly opinionated one way, and you will have other students who strongly and adamantly disagree. How can a teacher address the issue of religion, politics, and other very sensitive issues without imposing their own personal bias or without having a very volatile environment within their classroom? How can we as music educators in turn teach tolerance? I think that through music, this much needed issue could be addressed with new eyes.

In chapter two on page 29 Woodford makes the following statement:
"An overemphasis on on intellecualism, skill, or talent may contribute to elitism and the political and cultural mainstrems, while an overemphasis on emotion, spectacle, ritual or musical commodification may also contribute to the undetermining of democratic culture by failing to adequately prepare children to participate in public musical life. Either approach may contribute to the disfranchisment of children when music teachers ought to be providing more musical leadership with repsect to increasing the breath, depth and vitaltiy of students' musical experiences so that they can contribute to democratization of musical culture."

My question is that how do you find a middle? Outside of the music classroom students are exposed to the media frenzy of music, as Woodward loosely describes it the Disney version, but in the classroom music educators are considered to be old-fashioned, putting too much emphasis on skill and talent to promote "elitism". I strongly believe that music is for everyone, regardless of natural born ability, but I also think that students need to have the opportunity to build stronger musical skills than they have been given in the past. Where do we find the line between pop culture and western cannon then if both are important in their own right?

On page 27, during Woodford's discussion of Performance Reconsidered, Woodford lists the uses of music. "Music can be used to celebrate love, sex, religion, or patriotism, but it can just as easily be used to silence opposition or to stoke excessive patriotic, nationalistic, religious, or sexual fervor and thus channel, distort,or wipe out thought."

Do you think it is the role of the Music teacher to teach the different uses of music, or discuss with a class how these things can occur because of music? How would a teacher go about creating an atmosphere where open discussions about how a song made you think or feel are comfortable and acceptable? Also, Are teachers who believe in only teaching one method or Western cannon, using music to silence as Woodford says? What problems could occur in a class if these ideas of musical uses were discusses or even acted upon?

Partner Blog:

There are people who question moral education as a "should we or shouldn't we" issue. Focusing on America, there are so many who believe that the people of America, our leaders, and our followers, are morally inept. So, the question in my mind does not have to do with whether we should teach ethics and democratic values to our students, but how we should. How can be decide which morals to teach, and how do we do it in a way that is not didactic or obvious to our students. It is true that music in itself is an ethical undertaking, but in a general music classroom where many students are just not interested, how do we decide which lessons will be valuable to those students and which lessons we should leave to the music.

can only the "elite" appreciate the music that dominates our high school/university curriculums?

-Erina

When we teach music in the schools, is it with the expectation that we are preparing our students for a musical career? Are we trying to accomplish more/less than that when we teach music?

-Erina

On page 6 of the Democracy and Music Education Book, "It was up to individual children to develope their moral and ethical character through their own efforts. The role of the school and teacher was to create and maintain a social and intellectual environment should look like Dewey was reluctant to say". Should we as teachers aid students in their goal of developing moral and ethical character? Are students good enough role models, or does there need to be some type of help?

Partner Question:
In the excerpt we read, Woodford discusses the idea that so many music teachers are "classically trained" meaning that they went to college, studied classical music, majored in music education, and upon graduating went straight into teaching. My question to you is: How do you think the profession of music educator would change if the majority of music educators were not "classically trained" by Woodford's definition? For example, what if a majority of primary and secondary school music educators majored in performance in college, performed for a few years and then upon retiring from performing, obtained their Masters in Education and then taught or what if a majority of educators focused on Jazz or Reggae or Gospel music rather than a more classical training? How do you think this would benefit/hurt the music education professions and its students?

On page 22 of the Deocracy and Music Education Book he talks about justifying music: "This however is not to suggest that all musical ideas or truths claims are equally valid or good or that 'we have a duty to justify everything'." This statement really just brought me back to all of our dicussions on how does someone decide what good music is or what is worth teaching/learning. To bring it the step further though do you think we have a duty to justify the music? Should it be justified by the Democratic principles and criteria?

Question to Sandy!

On page 19 of the text, Woodford states- "The current confusion about musical criticism is really one of values and standards. Many music educators continue to believe that the western musical canon represents the high-water mark of human musical achievement and should be used as a yardstick or set of preestablished, objective, and permanent standards for judging all music." I was not really sure how I felt about this statement, is that really what music educators are doing? Are we doing this purposely or just because that music is what we may consider to be 'good'? How can we use something like the Western musical canon to evaluate music of other cultures such as West-African drumming or North Indian classical music? Is it possible to evaluate these types of music based on our concept of music, when these styles are SO different from Western classical music. Is it right to compare them? What could we gain from NOT comparing these different genres of music? Woodford goes on to say that other educators look at this in the opposite view, that no objective judgements are possible when looking at these differing genres of music, is there also a problem with this other extreme view? Are there any good compromises?

Partner Blog:
On page 13 Woodford says "What they elected for and what the public wanted, was polite music that was uncontroversial and guaranteed not to offend or ruffle anyone's feathers. Parents wanted this music in their schools because they believed that it led to social advancement, while music educators gained increased prestige through association with the upper class."

This really stuck with me. It got me to wondering, where should we as teachers stand on the line of uncontroversial music versus uncontroversial music? I mean, at one time "The Rite of Spring" was considered controversial, but it is still taught in schools. I guess what I'm asking is, how do you think we as music educators should handle music that could potentially be controversial but still holds content that we feel is academically and musically beneficial for our students?

In the first Chapter of Democracy and Music Education, Woodford can be found quoting and referencing the ideas of James Mursell, a music education activist and author. In the discussion of Mursell's ideas, the term "Participatory democracy" comes up as a positive program for music classrooms. Mursell conceived music teachers as leaders whose job it was to help students deliberate, choose and act cooperatively. Also, the ideal music program was a "cooperating venture involving all people (student, Parents, community etc.) who needed to coordinate their pursuit of common social, musical and educational goals." My question is, isn't this idea of common goals more like "Participatory socialism" than democracy?

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines democracy as "government by the people : ruled by the majority. A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." Is Mursell saying that students and parents should get together and "vote" on what is being taught? That the majority will rule over the minorities? Isn't that silencing, or hegemony? Where as Socialism is defined as "a system based on a belief that social ownership of the means of production can be achieved by voluntary and peaceful surrender of their holdings by propertied groups" In music education terms, that when administrators and curriculum standards yield to the people of society, and the community will "own" or guide decisions in pursuit of common goals.

So I ask, Are the ideas and ideals of Educational "Democracy" that we are reading about and being taught as "good teaching" really democracy or are they socialist ideas? And, do you think that Educational philosophers are only labeling it as such because of the negative connotations that socialism carries with it?

In chapter one the idea of "teachers as moral and intellectual" leaders is brought up, saying that they should lead and "direct by indirection". It goes on to say that teachers are to "establish the right conditions for inspiring, incalculating and guiding the development of socialized intelligence" I have a hard time with this, because you come up with the idea that obviously, you are a role model for your students. However, it seems like an aweful big shoes to fill; not only are we expected to serve as educational leaders but moral and ethical leaders as well. I just wanted to know how you possibly felt about the idea, what happens if you make the smallest mistake? Your students remeber everything, even if you change something in normal routine in the slightest form, and they talk about everything as well. It just seems very overwhelming to me to think that your life is on display, so how do you find the balance between a personal relationship with your students and revealing too much information? Obviously there are things you should never bring up, but you never know what could possibly cause problems.

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?

Partner blog:
When I was reading Democracy and Education I wrote in my notes, "popular music as the curriculum." Thinking back I remember that when I was reading this part of the text, I thought it was interesting that Woodford described popular music as something that we could base our curriculum on. He emphasized the use of popular music as something that is studied, rather than treating it as an "attention grabber." I thought this idea seemed like a good one, but it also scares me because I have no idea how I would do that. In what ways can you think of basing the curriculum on popular music?

In reading the Regelski article, one specific part stood out to me. He talks about the general music classroom serving as as way of identifying students who can match pitch easily and quickly learn to follow a score and giving them a "diet" of music at the high school level. The problem in this situation is that electives for general music in the high school are slim to none. In this situation many students do not decide to continue and are not getting the music education they deserve.

In the Jones article I found it very interesting what he thought the facilities in an ideal music program should be like. He says that the main issue is adding or upgrading technology. I believe that the description of the facilities is wonderful but how does one go about fixing the situation when there is a small budget. I know that in many schools the budget is extremely small, how do you get your school to provide you with more money if the program is not appreciated. I feel that this is almost a catch 22, without the funding the program fails but the program is failing because there is no funding.

CPIII Blog

This blog is not based on the articles that we've read but I have been wondering a lot about standardization. If schools were completely unsyncronized, a student is part of a family that moves a lot, it seems that this student is at a great disadvantage because it is likely that their edacation kind of scattered and is not in any logical order. No one would want a disjunct education for any child. However, it seems so hard to have syncronization in schools especially in a subject like music when some schools don't even have music programs. Many other things make it really hard to standardize schools. One thing that particularly came to mind was teachable moments. If you have one teachable moment every once and a while, it won't make that big of a difference in the curriculum that you cover. But perhaps you have a class that is curious and enthusiastic and teachable moments constantly occur, they do exist. As a teacher you wouldn't want to ignore the students' natural curiousity, but you need to stick with the curriculum standards...what do you do?

As I read the Jones article, like many of you, I favoured the ideas regarding the role music education can play in developing communities. One nagging concern I had, however, was his underlying motivation. It seems to me that in his view, the purpose is not really this wonderful community building, but that is a path en route to a kind of economic development which is laced with exploitation, i.e. capitalism. Did anyone else get that sense at all? Do you think that this is problematic? Or is this connection between music education and economics to be further developed? And if the relationship is to be developed, what kind of structure is best?

CPIII Blog

In Regelski's article he mentions institutions a lot. I wonder if it is good that we think about things in such terms. It reminds me of when we discussed in class about the term "color blind" and if that was a good thing. I think that races and cultures need to be acknowledged but do not need to be DWELLED on. But, in this case with the institutions, I wonder if they even need to be acknowledged. It is true that such things exist but I don't believe that these institutions are so concrete and defined that we need to talk about it at the length that Regelski did in his article. Because the human brain looks to categorize and judge, I don't know if it is safe to dwell on institutions of students vs an institution of teachers vs an institution of musicians. Especially after learning everything we have learned in critical pedagogy that the student and teacher should trade off roles and transformation should happen for both the student and the teacher. I'm not sure if these institutions have to exist in all classrooms.

CPIII Blog
In Jones' article he says that in order to have more creative and economy knowledge workers, students need to be involved in the community arts, not just in schools. How do we as music educators make this happen? I was thinking about this a lot while reading the article and the only thing I really could come up with was for the teacher to be really involved in the community's music outlets. If the teacher is directing a big choral work in the community or at a church, the teacher could invite the students to sing with them. Or, if the teacher is involved in a community musical production and invites the students to the performance, the students might enjoy it and think of auditioning for something themselves. What do you all think? Are there any other ways to get our students involved in the community?

In Regelski's article, he briefly discusses the birth of some of the education terms that we use today such as professor, lecture, and to receive a bachelors. Some of these terms are what stipulates how we feel about a class. For instance, if someone tells you that the professor simply stands in front of the class how are you going to feel before you ever step into the class? In the school systems the ranking of a teacher (bachelors, master, doctorate) will dictate how much the teacher will be paid and how much say they have in a program regardless of their skill as a teacher. My question is, should we manage to do away with said titles, would that allow students to feel more democratic within the class?

New Jersey is an area that is very close to two main metropolises: New York and Philadelphia. Jones talks about having creative workers coming in to the area. In many parts of New Jersey this isn't a very hard thing to find. The hard part is making the work fit what the creative worker is looking for. My question is what might we do in the community and in the school to create a positive atmosphere for creative workers and creative education?

I guess my question with creating these more artisitic communities is, what do towns that have no colleges or universities nearby (or if they are not willing to be so helpful, like Dickinson) to assist in creating these kinds of places to live. Even without actively doing anything, colleges and universities give their communities artistic and creative opportunities with the college performances, art exhibits etc. What about the places that don't have this at all though? It seems important to me to begin forming a lot of these creative communities, while having the already popular cities grow is great as more people move in and continually add to the arts, those places often become overcrowded with people. What we need is a lot of these kinds of communities so that networks of these communities begin to build. These networks would be able to help build more artistic communities. I do feel that these kinds of things do start with the school systems. Trying to build strong arts programs within the schools will give these communities young, creative people. Why not, as a music teacher at one of these schools, give assignments to go out and do shows in the public? These kinds of assignments may be more interesting to some students, giving them an opportunity to showcase their creativity for the public.

I would definitely have to agree with you Liz, (and Mr. Jones as well...) that community involvement is essential. I was also very fortunate to have grown up in a place where school was the heart of the community. There is an energy created and a sense of unity throughout a town that is united through a common good; the good being the children and their education. Whether it was a sports event, or a music concert, there was always a positive turn-out from the community to support their children's endevors. My school was used during after hours and on the weekend for many different events, including adult classes which offered language, music and other various studies. The older students (at the high school level) went to the younger schools every year (maybe more sometimes) to recruit and maintain the music programs. Our tri-m music honor society always made sure to get high school musicians to go to the middle school, (where for some reason music seemed to take a back seat to 5 day a week phys ed.) to promote the music program and show them that it really is "cool" to play an instrument or be in the choir. This was very successful, because the younger kids always looked up to the older kids. Nonetheless, my point is that creating that sense of togetherness and community will stimulate the entire surrounding environment that is "community." Positive vibes are contagious and so is music appreciation!

I think an important idea to take from the Jones article is community involvement. I know in my high school, we were considered a quality music program, but the only people who occupied seats at our concerts were parents and other students. Community involvement opens many doors to opportunities for students. First, students can be involved in advertising for concerts and musical events. Also, when the community is involved they will see the progress that is being made in the school. When it comes time to vote on the budget, they will have solid experiences to base their decision off of. Also, and most importantly, students will see that what they do has a positive affect on their world outside of school. Inviting the community to be a part of the musical experiences will help bridge that gap between what happens inside schools and what happens in the "real world."

To continue our discussion of the increasing demand for "creative workers", I was talking to my parents and found out that Carlisle, PA was just rated one of the top places to retire in the country. This led to a discussion of how the demand for the arts and "creative workers" will increase. Retirees are much more likely to visit museums, go to concerts, and hear lectures. This has led to a push by Dickinson College, a liberal arts college in Carlisle, to increase their artistic involvement in the community. Arts centers, music programs, and other artistic organizations are popping up all over the place. This is a perfect example of how "creative workers" are becoming more and more necessary in our society, especially in a retirement-age one.

In the Jones article, he discusses the differences that are present between the way the country approaches middle school music education and high school music education. Elementary music classes still focus on building basic musicianship skills and individual creativity. When students enter middle school and become members of larger ensembles, the development of these skills seems to get pushed aside. How can we restructure or approach middle school music education in a different way so that we can continue to teach skills? How can we realistically prevent this shift from happening so dramatically?

An interesting point to the Regelski article was his call for social awareness in teachers. I found all of the institutionalism very important, and thought invoking. It's controversial to think that we as educators will be entering a work place that has been formulated in such a way that what is expected of us can overwhelm us to the point of submission to the institution. Also I think social awareness is necessary to create critical thinkers in our students. Regelski points out how teachers can fall into the traps of institutionalism by labeling, naming, and generalizing about students. These are three things we learned in CP that teachers should not due. This article and what we learn in CP about "good teaching" will take an extreme amount of time, awareness and personal reflection to put into practice of our own teaching. I think it would be interesting to do a study on students who learn CP and Social awareness, and how when they are teachers they either do or don't allow what they learned to cause change in their institution.

A few select schools have been turning away from the sound of the bell. In studies they found that the sound of the bell was distracting to the students. Instead several different paths have been taken. The first path was to use no bell at all; this caused students to be on all different times. The most recent one they have tried is classical music. The studies found that this created a non-threatening and non distracting way to have the students change classes. The music plays throughout the hallway time and ends when class begins. What do you all think of this?

In Chatham math lessons they have added the Nintendo DS into the classroom. (2/2/07) was when the article ran in the daily record. They used the DS for its righting and sending option (you can communicate by either using the letters like a keyboard or actually using your own handwriting. They used this as a sort of flash card; I thought this was quite interesting. The teacher wanted to connect with the students lives, and give them skills that they would use outside of the classroom. The students also play a game called Brain Age. It tests the player’s mathematic skills and the age of the player’s brain. What do you all think of this?

This post is in regards to the Bowman article, which discussed moral education. Bowman was saying that music is inately social, and because of that students are taught certain ethics that will help them lead well-lived lives. He even lists ten reasons why he believes this. I've always agreed that education should be ethical, and I support John Dewey and the ideas he puts forth about a democratic society. But I know there are people who disagree with this view. Dr. Abrahams, last semester, said that he believes we should not force Democracy on people because it is not the only way of life and maybe we should be open to other ways of life. Others may say that the teacher who is teaching the ethics may not be a moral individual. Both of those arguments are circumstantial, and I still agree with living democratically, but I wanted to know how everyone else felt about this issue.

I have been thinking alot this week about the Regelski article and how it proposed that large ensembles should not be the pinnacle of music experiences in elementary, middle, and high school. I am trying to decide where I stand on this issue. On the one hand I feel like the works and the music you can create in a large ensemble is so significant, but you may not be able to give the attention to detail that you could in smaller ensembles. I guess I feel that there should be so amount of moderation on this issue. Perhaps there could be a large ensemble half of the week or cycle, and small ensembles the other half.

An important part of the Jones article was the research study done for the renewing of Pennsylvania. The study discussed the connection between the importance of creative arts education and the amount of young professionals moving into PA. The information in this study holds a significant value for those of you who are from PA, but also for all of us, because after we all graduate, PA is a state in which many of us might find our first jobs. The article emphasizes the importance of the connection between the music classroom and the community, which is a liberal, CP ideal. But it is necessary to realize that the ideas put forth in the article of changing classroom techniques, student involvement, and community outreach might not be possible or necessary in some areas. The research study was done across PA, which is a state full of very different situations. A classroom in eastern PA, in a more affluent area might be able to field these changes and reap the benefits. In Philadephia on the other hand, this urban school district that is in debt, and run with business ideals of production can not afford new technology in the classrooms, and in most situations music isn't even part of the school to change. I wonder if Jones was thinking about this when proposing these changes.

I really enjoyed the Jones article's discussion of how we could use technology more effectively in our music programs. I have already been thinking of some lesson plans that would incorporate things like that. However, some of the only ideas that I can come up with that use technology are recording pieces and putting them on a composition program like Finale. Does anyone else have any other interesting ideas to incorporate technology in the music classroom?

I would like to respond to something in the first article we read for class today. Overall, I agree with the overview that music education may lead to what the author calls "creative workers" that benefit the community. Many of her reasons, suggestions, and explanations link directly to critical ped! However, the point that large ensembles like band and choir should NOT be the focus of the music program. Whether or not this is true (and in this case, with the aim on "creative workers," I suspect it probably is true), how can we expect to change such a bold tradition in music education? In the schools I went to, these large ensemble classes were pretty much all that was offered, along with one fairly lame theory class. Music is already often thrown to the back burner and scheduled at the same time as more "important" classes such as APs. How can we, as teachers, expect our administration to give us more intricate, more beneficial classes when they do not see grand results with the large ensembles? Should we maybe focus on encorporating these same techniques into the ensembles instead?

http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/mejart.html

If you haven't read the feature article in January's Music education Journal it is a must! The main subject of this entire article is Music teacher preparation. I thought it was very interesting to see what we are living through every day in the eyes of the already educated. Also some of the points discussed in the Regelski article we read for class feed right into the ideas mentioned in MEJ. Some questions to ask yourself and comment on...

How well do you feel our training prepares us for the "real world" of Music Ed?
Do you think that the Critical Pedagogy we are learning will be lost when we enter a working world of forced curriculum, mandates and supervisors?
How will you explain the liberal and thought invoking style of teaching we are being taught at WCC?
Will CP effect your teaching when it doesn't have to anymore?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/education/22middle.html?ex=1170738000&en=486979e31eb26403&ei=5070
This is an article I found on NYTimes.com, talking about the same debate we had last week, whether or not it's a good idea to have a K-8 school or break up elementary, middle and high school. I'm still torn on the issue, because on one hand I understand that keeping students in middle school longer helps them to establish strong relationships and keeps them as "kids" a little longer, (after having third graders this summer at camp I think they want to grow up a little too fast) but I also understand that having fourteen year olds with five year olds can't be very stimulating. I know the grades would most likely be separated, but I find it hard to believe that you could have one administration dealing with their students fairly if there is such an age gap. I don't mean to drag on this discussion, but I thought it was interesting that I found another article dealing with the same issue after we had just discussed the exact same thing in class.

So Caroline, Erina and I are at Ewing HS doing practicum. We got to class last Tuesday and the students were told that it was the last day they had to hand in their midterms for the class, otherwise they would receive a failing grade, signifigantly lowering their grade for the semester. Thursday Mr. Atkins warned us that he would have to discipline the students because only 30 out of 50 students handed in their midterm assignment, which is close to half of the class. I do not understand why this may have happened, and I was shocked when he told us because the class seems to love him and choir so much. I was just curious as to what anyone thought on why things may have played out this way in a setting where the students really seem to enjoy the class.

Here's another something from my hometown newspaper, it's called the Times Union. It has a section called Classroom Enrichment. All of it seems really beneficial to the classroom such as giving newspapers to teachers for use in the classroom. Their objective is to "bring the world into the classrom." http://timesunion.com/classroom/
Anyways, there's something on here that made me stop. They say they offer ready to use lesson plans for teachers. I do not have enough information to make an accurate judgement on the actual lesson plans, but just the fact that a teacher can print off a lesson plan seems somewhate wrong to me. The lesson plan doesn't take into account any of the specific details of the specific classroom that the teacher would be using it for. I'm not saying this is a waste of an idea, it just makes me a little wary. I hope that teachers don't look to this offering as a way out of planning their own lessons.

There was an article in my hometown newspaper about No Child Left Behind. In it, all but one teachers that were interviewed had a criticism of the effects of the act. There was one teacher who defended it, but still admitted that there needed to be changes. Dr. Schmidt's discussion about what we can do to cause change, rather than complaining, got me thinking. With the ammendment period around the corner, what can we as students, who see and read about the negative effects, do to create the changes we envision?

I want to know what everyone else thinks about the inclusion of special education students into a general choral setting. I went to a high school where special education students were incorporated into the choral setting, I thought that this was incredibly beneficial to these students. My question is how people would feel about this if the choir were a primarily performance based high school. I always feel that every opportunity given to 'regular education' students should be extended to the students with special needs. I know that in my high school, we had one boy who couldn't sing a note, but absolutely loved being in choir and always knew the words. He was very enthusiastic (and very loud), but I think about what would have happend if we had gone to a competition. Would the judges detract from the choir's points if they had included this student in the performance? I think it would be absolutely awful for this to happen, but to be honest, wouldn't be surprised. What do people think about this?

Kind of as an update to my last post about school attitudes, I would like to give you all an idea of what has happend with my old high school. The teacher, a Westminster Choir College graduate (and one of the best in her class according to Dr. Abrahams) is in charge of the High School music program. The students are unhappy at this point with choir, in that district the number of students that do music just to socialize is unbelievable. The teacher has started to ask more of the student, which many of them are incredibly unhappy about. Again, I can say that from observing her classes, it is truly the students that are the problem, not her. The head of the music program in Millburn has come to the same conclusion after observations that he has done. In the past month or so, because of their anger, students have begun to drop choir in droves... around 80 students so far.... 80. The students have begun to complain to their parents who have taken it to the super intendant. I don't think that these parents have any interest in seeing the teacher's side, all they care is that their bratty children are complaining. These students honestly think that what they says, goes, no arguments. It appauls me to see this absolutely wonderful teacher reduced to tears virtually every day because she doesn't know what to do anymore. Even some of the students that love choir have dropped because they are so frustrated with the way the other students are treating her. How can students be held responsible for being completely out of line in the classroom. Having lived this school district, it almost doesn't surprise me that this is happening, but what can a school do about students like these?

Is it really wise to have high school show choirs or even general/mixed high school choirs to go out and compete? Sometimes I do not think so, because it builds the stress, involvement, core, basis and general musicianship around the competition. I feel that sometimes these competitions don't focus on the learning, respect and pure enjoyment of the music. Could it just be that there is a time and place for these types of competitions. I just fear that some students think of the winning perspective of it, instead of the musical perspective of it. What do you all think?

After being in Ed lab last Friday I was thinking back to the issues that we discussed in that class last semester. For instance, what grade level should we start using interdisciplinary skills at? Is it too soon to use them in the first or second grade? I do not think kindergarten is appropriate because they are too young. However, in the first grade the students are introduced to different subjects. But how do we do this in a way without losing their interest. I think, at that age most kids look at music as a nice break from their other classes. Sometimes I feel that the last thing a child wants to hear is what's going on in their other classes during music time. I think that children look to music as a relaxation for the mind. And they do not want to think about their science class during music class. So how do we so this? What is the best way?

Has everyone heard on the News about the bus problem in New York City? The schools decided that they needed to save money, so in order to do this, they cut back on 81 bus routes. Leaving a lot of kids not being able to be bused to school. The principle of this particular New York school said that all children (k-12th) can take the subway and metros. I think this is outrageous. You can't expect a 1st grader to hop on a subway. This has been going on for 2 weeks now, and I wonder how many kids haven't been able to get to school because of this. They interviewed one family, who lives 90 blocks away from the school, and every morning the father and son get up at 4:30am to get ready and have breakfast and it takes them an hour and a half to get to school. The father said that this was cutting into his job, but that his child has to go to school. Parents are furious. But they interviewed teachers of the schools and they think its great (or at least the ones they interviewed thought it was great) because they said they can get better pensions, benefits and better equipment in the schools etc. My question is.....How is better equipment in the schools going to help if you don't have the students in the schools to use them??

CPIII Blog
I was reading the newspaper online and I found an interesting article. A school district in Alabama is instituting a program called "Envision Education". This program will entail asking the students for their input on their education, rather than a board of adults. I think this is a great idea and has great possibilities. Let me know what you think!

Here's a link to the article:http://www.wtvynews4.com/home/headlines/5532061.html

CPIII Blog