MUSIC ADVOCACY: Caring Enough to Put the Student First
June 16, 2005
Music: Curricular, Co-curricular, or Extra-curricular? (Part I)
YES!
It is all three; and therein lies the confusion and one of
the major reasons that so many of our music programs seem to be under constant
attack.The primary issues surface in
four major areas.
Issue #1:Educators, administrators, school boards differ on how to interpret the
academic status of a music education program within the framework of state law.
In some cases, co-curricular and extra-curricular may be the same, but distinguished
from curricular. In other cases the three categories may be interchanged, or
even interpreted as identical.In my
experience, the legal definitions are rarely considered, other than to provide
a vehicle for moving music higher on priority lists that indicate "cut
here first."
Issue #2: Allocation of funds for music usually
appears as line items in all three budgetary categories.This is particularly true when directors of
music ensembles receive "extra-curricular" stipends for music performances
that are funded out of the same budget categories as non-music activities
perceived as "extra-curricular," such as athletics. It is also true
that the music (performance) curriculum may be governed by the same state
agency that oversees athletic competitions.
Issue #3:Even
music educators differ as to which category or categories best define the music
program.The demarcation often coincides
with the various philosophical positions that characterize the differences
between those programs or educators that emphasize music performance versus
music education.The debates are similar
to those that occur between educators that emphasize athletics versus physical
education.In addition, they seem to
align with the philosophical views of education of all, versus advancement of
the select or elite.As one music
teacher proudly informed me, "We start 500 new students in band and
orchestra each year; and by the time they reach high school we have it 'weeded
down' to the best 50!"
Issue #4:In
my years as a music educator and consultant working with over 300 districts, I
have yet to work with a school district that had a written, sequential
curriculum with specific, achievable and measurable ("SAM")
goals.There have been several with
well-developed curricular components and some with relatively complete written
documents.However, in each case where
such a document existed, one or more of the following characteristics were
evident.
There
was no standard or consistent system of student assessment to determine whether
or not any given number of students was accomplishing learner outcomes.
Curricular
statements were written as teaching objectives, not learner outcomes that
would give indication of what a student should know and be able to do upon
completion of their music education.
None
of the music teachers were unable to locate a copy of the curriculum
Some,
most or all music teachers summarily ignored the document, determining to
continue teaching to their own curricular standards or expectations.
Few
had given any consideration at all to the National Standards for Music
Education.
In the
absence of a system of assessment, not one district had implemented a
means of demonstrating the legitimacy of music education as a curricular
or academic entity to its administration and school board.
What does all of this mean? It means that until we as music
educators are able to provide consistent written documentation of our academic
legitimacy through systematic assessment of student achievement, we will
continue to be viewed as non-curricular, and expendable.
Part II of
"Music:Curricular, Co-curricular,
or Extra-curricular?" will provide a definition of the three categories of
music education, and make suggestions as to how you may implement a process for
establishing district policies related to distinguishing between them.
