Missing the Mark
Response to the article
Arts + Education = Core Curriculum?

Carl D. King, Ph.D.

Jill Hobby’s recent article in this journal (Tennessee Musician, March 2002, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 18, 19) presents a case for music and music education being a part of an integrated “Core Curriculum.” This writer made the mistake of reading this article just before going to bed and, thus, spent a restless and troubled night in thought. From the article, it is apparent that music needs to be “integrated” into a so-called “Core Curriculum.” It is also apparent that its purpose in public education for children today is as follows: build self-esteem, broaden the mind, foster self discipline, build teamwork, increase understanding of cultures (multiculturalism), increase standardized test scores through relating music to “academics” (this last one being of special importance), develop curiosity and imagination, enhance the “academic achievement” of most students.

My professional journey in music education began as a certificated music educator at the end of Fall Term, 1962. In December of this year, 2002, I will have spent forty years at various levels of music education. It troubles me that after forty years I am still hearing the same educational “drivel” today that was espoused by Colleges of Education and Educational Administrators/ Leaders that I was indoctrinated with back in 1962. These purposes and values all sound so good, scholarly, and educational, but have nothing to do with music and music education. These are the purposes that cause music to be cut when governmental and educational leaders cry “poverty” rather than fund the music program as a discipline equal to the other disciplines. These are the purposes that cause politicians and administrators to pay lip service to the Goals 2000 Standards when money or achievement scores are in question. These purposes relegate the music specialist to the position of a baby-sitter when the classroom teacher wants a coffee break. These purposes are part of the cause of the increasing decrease in amount of time spent on music learning rather than hiring additional music specialists when enrollments increase. These purposes place pressure on the music specialist to teach other subjects and be accountable for doing so in the music class when music literacy should be the focus of music education. These purposes relegate music education to the “back of the bus,” to use Lee’s reference (same joumal, same issue, p. 22). These purposes create a musical culture, described by Hinton (same joumal, same issue, p. 8), in replying to an earlier article by Boylan (TM. Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 43-45), as “virtually void of substance or profundity.” These purposes demonstrate the musical competence of too many administrators exemplified in a remark made recently by an administrator to a music teacher when asked to find a competent substitute when the teacher was sick: “I save the good subs for the more important subjects.” They are what is philosophically called ‘nonmusical’ objectives. Rather than leading to better music education they detract from assisting our children in meeting their musical potential.

After my initial indoctrination into these purposes, it took me some time to realize that
justification of my profession and my discipline should not be based on nonmusical purposes and values. Music should and does “stand on its own two feet” in terms of value to the child and society by being “what it is” not what it can do to benefit nonmusical purposes. To understand music is to understand a part of our existence, our “raison d’etat.” To have the cognitive, psycho-motor, and affective skills and concepts necessary to the perception of this existence provides the ability to experience a part of our existence called “beauty” or aesthetics. This as the soul purpose of our existence as a profession and, individually, as music educators. If we fail to provide these skills and concepts to our children so they may experience beauty through performance, composition, and as listeners, then we have failed in our sole mission in life. Why is this ability to perceive beauty so important? Because to perceive beauty is to make us uniquely human and therefore justify our existence as human beings.

The preceding and following is not intended to denigrate Hobby’s contribution. She is to be commended for her writing skills and presentation of matters relating to the issue. In fact the values she presents are an added benefit “if” they are realized “as” we educate our children in music. However, they are not our goal as “music educators.” To follow the path of justifying music education through nonmusical values is to teach “about” music and to use music for nonmusical purposes rather than teach music. The result is continued music illiteracy and the deprivation of the child’s realization of its potential to perceive beauty and, thus, its unique humanness. Credit must be given to Hobby in referring to Davis when she says: “Another rationale for music education is that music provides an outlet for self-expression and individual uniqueness because it enables students to express our deepest thoughts and feelings.” This is starting to head in the right direction, but the thought is taken no further. Integration appears to be the current fad, using music to teach non-music subjects and ideas. Colleges of education are using the idea to dilute the competencies of the classroom teacher by combining all the arts (dance, music, visual arts, theater, and even language arts) into one course with the amount of credit time reduced to three or six hours. In addition, they increase the redundant hours in education courses. This not only hurts the classroom teacher, but also the potential music specialist when they are forced into these redundancies to achieve certification. Integration of music into a so-called “Core Curriculum” is a myth. This is just another effort to say music is not important and is not equal to other disciplines.

The difference in the two rationales might be illustrated in a story about the young man going squirrel hunting for the first time who asks the old farmer whether he should take a shot gun or a rifle. The farmer’s reply was “Young man, you can kill a squirrel with either one. However, if you are good enough and really want to get some benefit from killing the squirrel you’ll use the rifle.” If we use the shot gun approach of nonmusical purposes to justify music education, we will reap little or no benefits. If we are good enough and can hit the mark of teaching for the perception of beauty, then we will achieve the benefits of realizing our unique humanness.

Carl D. King, Ph.D.
Professor, Vocal Music Education
Department of Music, Box 70661
East Tennessee State University
Johnson City, TN 37614
Phone: 423-439-6953