From Hypothetical Scenarios to Real Life

As you have read this chapter, I hope that examples from this scenario have brought to mind opportunities—and challenges—from your real-life teaching settings. This material is not intended to be prescriptive, or as a one-size-fits-all solution to “fix” your curriculum by imitating goals or use of existing tools suggested in this chapter. Rather, it is intended to provoke thought about how you might reflect on your teaching and your programmatic structures to continually improve them for your students’ benefit.

Making changes to your teaching and your curriculum more broadly may meet with skepticism, and even resistance, among some stakeholders. With that in mind, I conclude this chapter with some ideas for engaging with students, parents, administrators, and professional organizations as you consider broadening your instructional priorities.

Students. A wise colleague of mine once said that “students will think fourth grade band is whatever you tell them it is.” Secondary and university teachers’ students have spent years being socialized into a particular view of musicianship and music learning. Some may not have been invited to think about being a composer as part of being a musician, and may be hesitant to engage in composition activities. It may be helpful to share other students’ perspectives. In various research studies, students have reported finding benefit and meaning in creating music.

For example, Menard (2015) identified benefits general music and band students associated with composition: opportunities for personal discovery and expression, increased interest in music, increased musical understanding, increased understanding of compositional processes, and general enjoyment. They also identified challenges of self-criticism, time constraints, and understanding the composition process; more specifically, band students indicated that performance culture traditions and lack of fundamental music knowledge were impediments.

These perceptions of benefit and meaning extend beyond PK-12 school music education settings to higher education- and community-based settings. For example, university students in a songwriting course described self-expressive, therapeutic, and emotionally stabilizing benefits of writing and performing original songs in a semester-long course (Riley, 2012). Cohen and Wilson (2017) described both musical successes (e.g., improved skills using solfege to decode melodies) and social successes (e.g., overcoming inhibitions, and feeling a sense of value and accomplishment when their original works were performed) that incarcerated men experienced participating in a songwriting workshop. Music therapy and arts and health literature is also replete with examples of musically and personally beneficial composing experiences (e.g., Clark, et al., 2020; Hoover, 2021).

Parents. Just as students may have preconceived notions about what music instruction should entail, parents often lean on their own school music experiences—which may have happened 10, 20, or 30 years ago—as they make judgments about your classroom. In my experience, regardless of those preconceptions, parents get excited about their student’s compositions being performed. Some parents may become more excited about composition once they experience public performance of their child’s work. Similarly, informances (e.g., Reese, 2009) may illuminate day-to-day learning that may not be immediately visible at a concert.

Administrators. Doerksen (2006) notes that many administrators may have firmly held opinions about music instruction from their own experiences and often “hold onto their casually formed opinions with bulldog tenacity, and their faith in their own judgments is rarely shaken” (p. xi). If you encounter a resistant administrator whose conception of music education does not include composition, one strategy might be to draw on your administrator’s disciplinary background. For example, a principal who previously taught foreign language will understand the importance of teaching students to listen to, speak, read, and write in this new language, and that developing those skills will be mutually beneficial to others.

Explaining your desire to teach students to listen, improvise, read, and compose by drawing these comparisons may be helpful. Similarly, an administrator with background teaching history may be familiar with Stanford History Education Group’s “Reading Like a Historian” initiative (Stanford History Education Group, 2021) and see parallels between that approach and a music teacher’s efforts to compare and contrast multiple primary sources (e.g., recordings, scores) to help students understand how composers might solve musical problems. More broadly, knowing your administrator, their background, and professional pressures (e.g., district initiatives, state mandates) can help you be prepared to engage in these conversations. (See Bernard & Abramo, 2019, Chapter 7, for additional strategies.)

Another dimension of a music educator’s work may be educating administrators about how music education is changing (and has changed since they participated as students). You may need to explain that performances administrators might expect are one dimension of music learning. Show them your state’s standards and engage them in a conversation about wanting to meet them. What administrator would not be open to that conversation? You might propose to develop a one-, two-, or five-year plan to reconfigure your curriculum for balanced alignment among standards, perhaps using a framework described in this chapter as a model. And if your school or district doesn’t have a music curriculum, these conversations would be a great time to suggest writing one!

Professional Organizations. While not explicitly intended as teacher and/or program evaluation, professional organizations’ recognitions provide external validation and are often interpreted by stakeholders (e.g., administrators, parents) as such. Many state MEAs recognize students, teachers, schools, and/or districts; however, these accolades focus primarily on music performance. It is notable—and indeed heartening—that many state MEAs have developed composition-focused programs (e.g., New York State School Music Association, 2021; Virginia Music Educators Association, 2021). While these initiatives focus primarily on students, they could also promote a more holistic view of music teacher and/or program evaluation that considers music composition an important element.

Similarly, MEAs often recognize music teachers for performing groups, organizational service, or innovative course offerings. Related recognitions could celebrate teachers who increasingly centralize composition. Similarly, music teachers’ evaluations may include the number of students who participate in solo and ensemble festivals each year. While these events typically do not welcome student compositions, there are models for more expansive repertoire selection. Maryland Music Educators Association (2021) recently offered a Solo & Ensemble Festival for which “there is no approved repertoire list, no instrument/vocal styling restrictions, and students and educators are encouraged to select repertoire that is representative of the student’s personal experiences and culture" While this structure does not necessitate students performing their own composition, it allows them to do so.

Educating and engaging stakeholders can support changes that enhance your students’ composition learning. Teacher assessment and program evaluation frameworks shared in this chapter can promote self-reflection, dialogues with stakeholders, and data collection to thoughtfully consider modifications. As Wesolowski et al. (2019) remind us, “it is through such honest reflection that music educators can move their programs and the profession toward a more holistic approach to music education" (p. 504).

References: Arizona Department of Education. (2020). Arizona arts standards. https://www.azed.gov/ standards-practices/k-i2standards/arts-standards

Bernard, C. F., & Abramo, J. M. (2019). Teacher evaluation in music: A guide for music teachers in the U.S. Oxford University Press.

Clark, I. N., Stretton-Smith, P. A., Baker, F. A., Lee, Y. C., & Tamplin, J. (2020). “It’s feasible to write a song": A feasibility study examining group therapeutic songwriting for people living with dementia and their family caregivers. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1951. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01951

Cohen, M. L., & Wilson, C. M. (2017). Inside the fences: Pedagogical practices and purposes of songwriting in an adult male U.S. state prison. International Journal of Music Education, 35(4), 541-553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761416689841

Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching: Evaluation instrument. Danielson Group.

Danielson Group (2019). The framework for teaching: Music education. Danielson Group.

Doersken, D. P. (2006). Evaluating teachers of music performance groups. Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Ferguson, D. A. (2007). Program evaluations in music education: A review of the literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 25(2), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 87551233070250020102