A reflection on Hanley's “What's Ahead? Challenges for Music Education in Canadian Schools”

Should music education serve the needs of some students or all students? Is the purpose of arts education to develop professionals or a literate populace (or both)?

The function of music education is often debated in our society. There are those who consider the cost of music education too steep for its potential gain, while others tend to see the investment as a more intangible commodity, whose value is not measured in dollars and cents, but rather in an improvement of society through enlightenment and appreciation. Betty Hanley attempts to answer this question in her article “What's Ahead? Challenges for Music Education in Canadian Schools”¹. She touches on several important factors affecting the business of music education today, including the under-appreciation of specialist teachers, music education in the elementary sector, the dumbing down of the curriculum (and its intrinsic effect on musical standards), and the public opinion of music as a serious subject of study. Furthermore, she analyses the affect on these issues by looking through the eyes of a post-modern society, where the older values of “high art” and “aesthetic judgement” are cast aside, and new, innovative outlooks are presented. Lastly, Hanley communicates the merits of constructivism and collaboration, as a new way of instructing our next generation.

On the topic of “need”, there is often a proverbial tug-of-war between those who wish to see individual students excel, vis-a-vis those who prefer to have all pupils advance at the same time (similar to the “No Child Left Behind” point of view). On the one hand, encouraging individual students and rewarding progressive behaviour allows one to achieve great results, but at the expense of those who don't qualify for such exclusive treatment. However, on the other hand, we have a system where those who excel are held back, and those who struggle, are pulled forward through extra attention. Arguably, the system in place today focuses on the latter ideology, as consistency in results is often favoured. The ideal solution is one that encourages those who excel, while at the same time, making sure those that struggle are well taken care of. At face value, this approach does not seem to take into account the fact that much more effort and funding must be provided, should this solution be viable. However, Hanley also reflects on the constructivist viewpoint, which encourages a strong belief that the student has an innate knowledge of the subject material – that music students are inherently musical, and so on. If we treat our students like those of yesteryear, we will invariably fall into old patterns and habits of treating our students like empty vessels with which to fill with information, rather than to treat them like human beings capable of independent learning. As Hanley puts it:

The constructivist teacher does not provide their students with prepackaged content or a single 'correct' set of procedures, choosing rather to provide them with alternatives and encourage thoughtful application and critique.

This progressive attitude can further be applied toward music education, in the term Martha Wiske calls “Teaching for Understanding”, or TfU². Given these attitudes, it's easy to imagine that such a system can be beneficial to students across the spectrum.

Another proverbial hot topic in the field of music education today (especially those with less idealistic viewpoints) is the end use of music. Whereas other disciplines often have clearly defined benefits to society, the study of music is often described as abstract and self-indulgent. As demonstrated in the 1995 film Mr. Holland's Opus, even Holland's first assignment – that of a teacher of “Music Appreciation” – is treated with contempt by his very own students³. If this is the current state of affairs in our society, why do we aim toward training tomorrow's professionals? Reinforcing the concept of “high art” as an aesthetically superior art form only serves to isolate the public from true appreciation of art (and by extension, music). Hanley mentions an article by Dennis Fehr, who pointed out several erroneous assumptions toward arts education, which has been termed the “Modernist” view⁴. Namely, our elevation of high art over the more recent popular art. Hanley then questions why high art has any precedence over popular art, as both are legitimate art forms. Furthermore, if popular art is the accepted norm, then the teaching of high art as an arbitrary standard is simply erroneous.

Granted is the fact that the legitimacy of art is not dictated by the popularity of one form over another, but through the conservation of an art form that at one point in time, was popular. Still, one must ask the question of whether arts education should be aimed toward developing professionals, or rather, toward developing an arts-centered and literate populace. Ideally, of course, the answer would be a mixture of both, but with neither the resources nor the organization to do both, the most practical solution in the short-term would be to develop a greater public appreciation of the arts. Hanley broaches this topic by citing the case study of Mississauga's Gordon Graydon Memorial School, “whose business partnerships and entrepreneurial spirit are instructive”⁵, and the trend toward music advocacy. She warns of the blinding effect of endless commercialization, and stresses a non-vocational model of music education: “aesthetic music education, discipline-based music education, and comprehensive musicianship models”⁶. When it comes down to arts or music education, there is even more of a need for a well-rounded education. Proficient performers and able musicians are both proficient and able in the “technical” sense, but as to whether they truly understand and appreciate their art is a different story. It is easy to follow the motions, practice, and model oneself on a personified ideal, but unless the underlying appreciation is promoted, it is all for naught. As with the constructivist viewpoint toward education, a firm belief in the inherent talent of students should be encouraged, as should an appreciation of the arts as a legitimate form of study. Furthermore, this ideal type of education must be approached in a non-linear fashion, with education tailored to each individual students' strengths and weaknesses. With this positive style of arts education, we avoid the needless “de-construction” of students' inherent knowledge and understanding of the musical world around them. In a sense, we would be teaching to develop the minds of tomorrow, as opposed to teaching to live in the successes of the past.