Lead by Standards? A Historical Examination of the Guiding Principles in the National Music Standards.

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Aaron W. Wilburn, MMusEd

Graduate Program in Music

The Ohio State University

2018

Dissertation Committee:

Robert Gillespie, Advisor

Phil Smith, Co-Advisor

Jan Edwards, Committee

Tiffany Wild, Committee

Copyright by

Aaron W. Wilburn

2018

Abstract

This study analyzed the development of professional music learning standards created by the Music Supervisors’ National Conference (MSNC), Music Educators National

Conference (MENC), and the National Association for Music Education (). In 1921,Music

Teachers National Association (MTNA) supported the first set of printed standards, A

Standard Course in Music. From 1921 through present, has allocated significant time and resources studying and advocating for learning standards in public school. Over a ninety-six-year period, MENC authored numerous statements of belief and five professional learning standards: A Standard Course in Music (1921), Basic Course in

Music (1936-42; revision to 1921 document, however, the secondary level revision was never completed), The School Music Program: Description and Standards (1976), The

School Music Program: Description and Standards (1985), Voluntary National Music

Standards (1994), and Core Arts Standards (2014).

iii

Dedication

This Dissertation is dedicated to my former students, you may have called me teacher, but it was I who was learning, thank you.

I also dedicate this work to the many teachers and mentors that have helped shape my experiences and to my parents and wife who encouraged my work, education, and love for critical thought.

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my first teachers, my parents, Bill and Lori Wilburn for their unwavering love and support. My parents planted, and nurtured, a love of music and education that has sustained me to this day. The countless hours of travel to lessons and rehearsals, as well as, their encouragement for me to pursue music as a career has helped propel me to this point. I want to thank my late grandparents, Bill and Shirley Wilburn, for encouraging me to pursue my dreams.

My grandparents were always so proud of their grandchildren and when things got tough and I got discouraged, Grandpa was always quick with a kind word and encouraging thought. I’d like to thank my grandparents, Larry and Mary Blubaugh, whom gave me respite from my early college life so frequently. Their love and encouragement certainly helped foster my willingness to continue to pursue education.

Also, I would like to thank my grandfather, Larry Blubaugh for teaching me to follow my dreams with the help of a shovel, a large pile of mulch, and a day of long work and stories.

To my amazing wife, Kalin Wilburn, and children, JW and Alana, this would never have been possible without you. So often I felt like I couldn’t finish and your persistence, belief, and love were the only things that helped me see the end of the tunnel. Kalin, thank you for all you did! Your help editing, reading, and taking care of family responsibilities, while I spent my waking hours researching and writing, made this all

v

possible. I’ll be forever indebted to your unconditional love and support. When I first came to you with the idea of pursuing my PhD you simply said “yes.”

To my children, thank you for being patient with me as I spent countless hours in front of mountains of books, journals, and my computer screen, while you focused on hockey dreams, karate practices, and family time without me. I will forever be grateful for your love and support; I hope that one day I can be as patient and love as the three of you.

To my committee member, Dr. Edwards, thank you for your incredible insight and feedback. You seemed to ask the right questions and direct my thinking when it was most needed. Again thank you.

To my advisors, Dr. Robert Gillespie and Dr. Phil Smith, your patience, guidance, insight, and feedback helped in more ways than you will ever know. Dr. Smith, I remember vividly the first class I took with you as the professor, to say it was life changing would be quite the understatement. Your willingness to share thoughts and listen to ideas, well after class hours, inspired me to truly pursue my interest in the history of music and its role in education. You opened my eyes to the world of educational philosophy; a path I will explore for the rest of my days. While I didn’t take the most direct path, your support and willingness to allow me to find my way there will be ingrained in my mind forever.

Dr. Gillespie, thank you for the opportunity to attend The Ohio State University and refine my skills as a string pedagogue; I can firmly say I am the teacher I am today because of your guidance, expertise, belief, and encouragement. In the moments when I vi

didn’t believe in myself, your guidance and feedback fueled my desire to become a better educator and musician. I am incredibly grateful for your help on this project. The edits you tirelessly recommended, the questions you asked to refocus my thoughts and directions, and your guidance and thoughtful insight made this dissertation possible.

Thank you!

Lastly, I’d like to thank my cello professor, mentor, and friend, Mark Rudoff for his support. He always provided me an avenue to share ideas and was always willing to have conversations which made me question and explore new viewpoints. I’ll forever be grateful to you for allowing me to challenge the status quo.

vii

Vita

1998……………………………...Rockwood Sr. High

2002……………………………...B.M. Music Ed, Heidelberg College

2009……………………………..M.M. Music Ed, Boston University

2009-2012………………………Graduate Teaching Associate,

Department of Music, Ohio State University

2013-Present……………………Director of Orchestras, New Albany

Fields of Study

Major Field: Music

Outside Cognate: Educational Philosophy

viii

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………..……….iii

Dedication………………………………………………………………………………...iv

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………….v

Vita………………………………………………………………………………...……viii

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………xii

Chapter 1: Introduction of Study………………………………………………………….1

Statement of The Problem……………………………………………………...…2

Background Information…………………………………………………………..4

Limitations………………………………………………………………...………8

Purpose of The Study………………………………………………...……………9

Research Questions……………………………………………………………....10

Method…………………………………………………………………………...10

Significance of The Study………………………………………………………..13

Summary…………………………………………………………………………15

Chapter 2: Background and Development of The 1921 Standards………………………16

Development of A Standard Course in Music…………………………………...28

Standard Course in Music Accepted…………………………………………….34

Standard Course in Music Summary…………………………………………….38

Chapter 3: Standards from 1930s – 1940s……………………………………………….43

Defining Progressive Education…………………………………………………44

ix

Statements of Belief Established………………………………………………...47

Music Education and Progressive Education…………………………………….49

Progressive Ideals: Child-Centered/Social Reconstruction……………………...56

Reflection………………………………………………………………………...69

Chapter 4: Standards in The 1950s and Forward………………………………………...75

MENC Work Pre-1950…………………………………………………………..75

Music Education and Shifting Ideas……………………………………………..78

MENC Post-War Period…………………………………………………………81

MENC 1950 And Forward……………………………………………………….84

National Collaboration…………………………………………………………...88

The Role of Art in Education…………………………………………………….90

MENC Standards Revisions……………………………………………………..92

Challenging American Education………………………………………………..96

Education Responds to American Concern…………………………………….100

Effects of Sputnik………………………………………………………………102

Music’s Role in A Technology Era…………………………………………….106

Yale Seminar…………………………………………………………………....109

Music Educators Respond………………………………………………………112

Tanglewood Symposium……………………………………………………….113

GO Project Begins……………………………………………………………...114

The School Music Program…………………………………………………….116

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...118

x

Chapter 5: Standards in 1980s and Forward……………………………………………120

1980s Educational Reform: Overview…………………………………………120

The National Commission On Excellence in Education (NCEE)………..……121

Excellence in Education: NCEE Recommendations………………………..…129

National Response to The NCEE Recommendations……………………….....132

Educational Reports of Differing Opinion………………………………..……134

The MENC Response……………………………………………………….….139

Preparing for The Future……………………………………………………….143

Voluntary Standards: The Beginning…………………………………………..146

National Standards for Arts Education…………………………………………151

National Core Arts Standards…………………………………………………..154

Defining The NCAS……………………………………………………………158

NCCAS and NAfME…………………………………………………………...161

Anchor Standards for Ensembles……………………………………………….161

Today’s Standards………………………………………………………………163

Chapter 6: Introduction..…………………………………..……………………………164

Chronological Summary of Standards………………………………………….168

Implications for Music Education and Future Research………………………..187

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...195

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………199

Appendix A: Course of Study by Years…………………………………….………….211

Appendix B: Tanglewood Declaration…………………………………………………221

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1: Comparing National Music Standards………………………….167

Figure 2: National Core Art Standards……………………………………183

Figure 3: General Music Standards……………………………………….185

Figure 4: Evaluating Standards against Dr. Lehman’s Benefits………….194

xii Chapter 1 Introduction of Study Introduction

Music education has long played an important role in society.1 Dating to the ancient Greek and Hebrew societies’, music was viewed as an important social function.

Playing such a vital role in societal purpose, music has always had a philosophical basis from which to operate.2 Great thinkers like Plato and Aristotle contributed much to the philosophical foundation for music education. However, the volatile nature of public education has left music educators to justify their profession and its inclusion in public curriculum. This phenomenon is not new. Since music’s introduction into public education curriculum, educators have felt pressure to justify music as an offering in the curriculum. As Gehrkens published in 1919, “In the next few years it will be increasingly necessary to have aims in education, and if any subject or topic is to hold its place in public school curriculum it will have to be shown in a very definite way that something concrete and tangible along either practical or spiritual lines is likely to result from it.”3

In assessing the importance of music education, philosophers, educators, and policy makers simply have had to decide “What of all that can be taught is most worth teaching?”4 This simple question has led to lengthy debate about how students are best

1 Michael Mark and Charles Gary. A History of American Music Education. Lanham, Rowan and Littlefield, 2007. 2 Michael Mark. “A Historical Interpretation of Aesthetic Education.” Journal of Aesthetic Education Vol 33. No. 4 1999. 3 Karl Gehrkens. An Introduction to School Music Teaching. Boston, C.C. Birchard, 1919. P. 5 4 Thomas Regelski. “Implications of Aesthetic versus Praxial Philosophies of Music for Curriculum and Theory in Music Education.” Mayday group. http://www.maydaygroup.org/php/resources/theoreticalpapers/regelski-aestheticandpraxialcurriculum.php. accessed 2/19/2008. 1

served through music curriculum. The recent emphasis on standards based education

(ie. No Child Left Behind, A Nation at Risk, Goals 2000, Housewright 2020 has a long historical and philosophical basis. What are the origins of these standards? When and where did these standards appear? Why were these standards documents created?

What factors led to the development of national music standards? Are there commonalities among the standards documents? Did political, social, philosophical, or educational reform movements contribute to the development of music standard’s documents? This study will investigate the creation of music standards historically by identifying events, people, documents, and ideas that influenced music education during the process of creating musical standards between 1921-1994.

Statement of the Problem

The 1994 National Standards were no doubt inspired, in part, by the reform rhetoric of the 1980’s and the publication of A Nation At Risk.5 While the standards were envisioned as a way to strengthen music’s place in curriculum, Paul Lehman, in his chapter “The Power of the National Standards,” states “Standards were designed to reflect the best practices of our profession.”6

The Music Educators National Conference, or National Association for Music

Education (MENC now NAfME ) has historically been viewed as the guiding professional

5 Cathy Benedict. “Chasing legitimacy: the US National Music Standards viewed through a critical theorist framework.” Music Education Research Vol. 8 No. 1, 2006. P. 30. 6 Paul Lehman. “The Power of the National Standards.” In Performing with Understanding: The Challenge of the National Standards for Music Education, ed. Bennett Reimer. Reston: MENC, 2000, p. 4. 2

association for school music education. The creation of the National Standards in 1994 ( published by MENC) is not surprising, as MENC had been using its professional influence for some time to guide music education.7 “At the very least, our standards should earn for music a place at the table in the major forums where education reform is discussed.

The Standards further strengthen our position because they represent a broad national consensus.”8

Since music’s inclusion in public school curriculum, educators have sought ways to strengthen music’s position. “The identification of standards and achievement levels demonstrated that the music education profession considered its work to be consequential, that it could measure music learning, and that it was committed to remaining relevant to American society.”9 Recently NAfME, in conjunction with the

National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCCAS), published the 2014 National Music

Literacy Standards (in quotes because it is a publication?)In quotes because it’s the first time I have used the abbreviation for this group. These organizations worked to revise the 1994 standards, in part, due to the increased technological advancements to better provide an authentic avenue for assessment and focus on career and college readiness in the twenty-first century.10 These updated music standards allow music teachers to

“cultivate the cross-cutting college-and career ready and 21st-century skills that are

7 Mark and Gary. A History of American Music Education. Lanham, Rowan and Littlefield, 2007. PP. 336- 378. 8 Ibid. p., 9. 9 Michael Mark and Gary. A History of American Music Education. p. 38. 10 Scott Schuler, Martin Norgaard, and Michael Blakeslee. “The New National Standards for Music Educators.” Music Educators Journal Vol 101 No. 1, 2014 3

increasingly expected of students in all subject areas.”11 The re-envisioned standards address many of the concerns of education in the 21st century. “The new standards encourage music educators to design music curriculum, instruction, and assessment that help students think like musicians, in much the same way that contemporary science educators engage students in the scientific process used by professionals in the field.”12

Background Information

William Channing Woodbridge and Lowell Mason, with the assistance of a choir of children, addressed the American Institute of Instruction in Boston on August 24th,

1830, to petition for the inclusion of music in the public schools. The American Institute of Instruction was the first multi-state association of teachers and advocates of compulsory public education. The society resulted from a meeting of over two hundred educators and advocates from eleven states that wanted to encourage advancement in education. The primary purpose of this organization became “the diffusion of useful knowledge in regard to education.”13

In their address, Vocal Music as a Branch of Common Education, Woodbridge and

Mason outlined several important standards for music instruction that are easily recognized:

11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Richard B. Michael. “The American Institute of Instruction.” History of Education Journal Vol. 3, No. 1 Autumn, 1951. 4

“The ultimate objects’ of vocal instruction are to improve church music, to refresh the mind, to improve the physical constitution, to promote cheerfulness and mental health and further to; develop character and morals, to improve school discipline, to habits of order and obedience, and union which will transfer to other areas of life as well, and to facilitate learning and retention of information.”14

However, Mason and Woodbridge did not meet with initial success including vocal instruction in public education. Following the 1830 presentation in Boston, Lowell

Mason continued to advocate for an inclusive vocal education. In 1831 a chorus of children, led by Lowell Mason, gave a performance of America in the Park Street church in Boston.15 The performance was well received and, in part, led to a special committee resolution to the Primary School Board of Boston.16 George H. Snelling presented a thorough report to the School Board “urging the adoption of music as a regular study in the primary schools.”17 However, the School Board took no further action and the inclusion of vocal music in public school was delayed.

In 1832 the Boston Academy of Music was established, where Mason would instruct over fifteen hundred pupils in the first five years.18 By 1837 a special committee was established to consider including vocal music as part of the public curriculum. “After mature deliberation and a careful scrutiny of arguments and evidence, the committee are unanimously of opinion that it is expedient to comply with the request of the

14 Estelle Jorgensen. “William Channing Woodbridge lecture.” www.usr.rider.edu/`vrme/v14n1/vision/woodbridge.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2010, p. 10 15 Edward Birge. History of Public School Music in the United States. Philadelphia: Oliver Ditson Co, 1937. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid 5

petitioners.”19 The special committee further stated that music should be examined on the following standards: intellectually, morally, and physically. “ Let vocal Music be examined by this standard (emphasis added).”20 The board thought music should be examined intellectually, acknowledging its place “among the seven liberal arts.”21 Music examined morally acknowledged music’s ability to imitate emotions, or “produce habits of feeling of which these sounds are the type.”22 The physical nature of music was said to aid the body. “. . . That the exercise of the organs of the breast by singing contributes very much to defend them from those diseases to which the climate and other causes expose them.”23

Early standards of music were motivated heavily by extrinsic factors. This justification is not surprising as early colonial America was still greatly influenced by religion, values, and the forming of a democratic society.24

In 1921, MENC presented a publication entitled: Standard Course of Study in

Music, in which a committee outlined the standards for school music education curricula. Additional standards documents, such as A Course of Study in Music, were published in 1936 and 1938. MENC provided another set of standards for music education in 1974 shortly after the Yale Seminar (1963) and Tanglewood Symposium;

19Boston School Committee. “The Boston School Committee Report of Special Committee (1837)” in Music Education Source Reading from Ancient Greece, ed. Michael Mark. New York: Routledge, 2008, p. 87 20 Ibid. p. 88 21 Edward Birge. History of Public School Music in the United States. Philadelphia: Oliver Ditson Co, 1937. p. 41 22 Ibid. p. 41 23 Michael Mark. Music Education: Source Readings from Ancient Greece to Today. London, Routledge, 2002, p. 89. 24 Mark and Gary. A History of American Music Education. pp. 68-105. 6

(1967) MENC published The School Music Program: Descriptions and Standards that would serve as the profession’s guidepost until the creation of the Voluntary National

Standards in 1994 ,followed by the re-envisioned Music Standards of 2014.

As a response to the reform rhetoric of the Yale Seminar, music educators convened at Tanglewood Symposium to discuss music education reform. As a result of these educational reform seminars “MENC realized that it had been operating from one biennium to the next and had not developed long-term goals for policies and programs.

In addition, members were demanding a more active organization with greater contributions to the needs of music education.”25 An historical review will show that, over the years, various music education standards were published many times and likely were influenced by similar developments in education.

The contributions of these standards’ documents to the field of music education should not be overlooked. Standards were seen as a way to unify the profession towards a common belief and give equal access to every student and teacher across the nation. “The Standards (1994) were never intended to reflect the status quo but rather to provide a vision for the future. They seek to set forth the long-term goals of society for what music education ought to be. They are based on the best practices within our profession and are grounded in the collective judgment of our professional colleagues.

Their aim is to make available in every school the kind of high-quality music programs

25 Elizabeth Pontiff. “We Had Made Our Job a Profession: MENC’s First 100 years.” Teaching Music vol. 15 No. 2, October 2007. 7

currently available in only the best schools. Certainly this is an appropriate and reasonable goal in a democratic society.”26

Limitations

The present study, Lead by Standards?, will put in context the development of professional standards in music education historically, through the use of books, journals, professional publications, and interviews. The numerous rationales, justifications, and philosophical arguments that have been levied in support of music, illustrate the perceived need to constantly defend music education. Also, this study will only examine national level standards and will not include discussion of state level standards that may have been published at the same time. An in depth analysis of each philosophical idea will not be presented. Furthermore, additional studies would be needed to fully evaluate and understand the philosophical influences that may have influenced historically the creation of music standards.

Evaluating and understanding the evolution of music standards may not lead to answers; perhaps only more questions. Yet, studying the development of these standards will provide music educators with a deeper appreciation of their creation, influences, and importance to the field, and may provide greater understanding the development of standards in the future.

26 Straub, Lehman, Reimer, Et. Al. “Report to the MENC National Executive Board.” October 2007. http://www.menc.org/resources/view/october-2007-report-of-the-menc-task-force-on-national-standards . Accessed May 9, 2012. 8

While music educators spent a great deal of time advocating for music instruction before 1921, this study will focus its efforts from 1921 onward. The year

1921 represents the first set of standards that were supported and published by a professional organization of music. The study will progress chronologically culminating with the most recent statement of the 2014 National Standards for Music Education.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to historically trace the development of standards’ publications for music education in public schools, beginning in 1921 with Music

Supervisors National Conference’s (MSNC) first published bulletin: Standard Course of

Study in music through NAfME’s National Music Standards in 2014. Furthermore, this historical examination will present the social, political, philosophical, and educational reforms that were present during the creation of these standards documents and their influence on the standards.

This study will investigate the historical context of each standards publication, in an effort to better understand the history of professional music standards and their development in American public education. Standards were not created in isolation, other events impacted their creation. “Music education has both antecedents and consequences, central and peripheral.”27 Better understanding the context surrounding

27 Ibid. p. 104. 9

the creation of standards will not only allow music educators to fully appreciate their development, but also will help prepare them for future endeavors.

Research Questions

1. What music standards were created between 1921 and 2014?

2. Were the standards printed/published for professional use?

3. What historical factors led to the development of music standards?

4. Were there common factors that influenced the development of music

standards?

5. Are there similarities among the standards as they appeared throughout

history??

6. Are there differences among the standards as they appeared throughout

history?

Method

The focus of this study will be to examine the processes and ideas that led to the creation of national music standards and their publications historically. Through examining primary and secondary sources relating to the creation of national standards in education, this historical dissertation will center on relating past standards to current standards movements and investigating the ideas and trends that led to their developments. Furthermore, by examining historical events and examining the interaction of people and ideas with the various standards ‘publications, music 10

educators will better understand the evolution of professional music standards. Through this study, the people and ideas intertwined with each professional standards publication will be identified and discussed. To this day, “Gaps remain in the present story of people, places, and ideas associated with music teaching and learning.”28

Homer Hockett describes historical research as having three steps: “(1) collecting data, (2) evaluating the data collected, and (3) presenting and interpreting the facts in readable form.”29 “Musicians involved in historical research typically find their data falling into one or more of the following categories: … (5) collecting, codifying, or analyzing data of historical import from diverse sources.”30 Often considered

“documentary research”, this historical dissertation will attempt to research primary, secondary, and other sources of information, to present an interpretation of the factors leading to the creation of music national standards.31

External and Internal criticism will be used to verify the reliability and validity of the sources used for this historical report. Hockett defines external criticism as the authenticity of a document; “a comprehensive term which… includes not only manuscripts but books, pamphlets, maps, even ancient inscriptions and monuments.”(as quoted in Phelps)32

28 George N. Heller and Bruce D. Wilson. “Historical Research” in Handbook of Research in Music Teaching and Learning, ed. Richard Colwell. NY: Schirmer books, 1992. P. 102. 29 Homer C. Hockett. The Critical Method in Historical Research and Writing. New York: Macmillian, 1955, p. 9. 30 Roger Phelps, et. Al. “Historical Research: Concepts and Techniques.” in A Guide to Research in Music Education, ed Phelps et al. Lanham MD: Scarecrow Press, 2005. p. 218. 31 Ibid. p. 222. 32 Roger Phelps, et. Al. “Historical Research: Concepts and Techniques.” in A Guide to Research in Music Education, ed. Phelps et. Al. Lanham MD: Scarecrow Press, 2005. p. 225. 11

Internal, or higher, criticism is necessary to establish the integrity of the sources used. Louis Gottschalk states that the purpose of internal criticism is to “determine how credible the data may be.”33 Roger Phelps explains that some historiographers divide internal criticism into positive and negative phases. Positive criticism attempts to determine the true meaning of a source or statement. Negative criticism is explained as a researcher’s decisions for discrediting sources or statements.

Hockett and Gottschalk do not go far enough, however, for the purposes of this study, while their methodology provides an appropriate sequence for documenting historic events, it does not account for the interaction of humans and ideas with the historical event under investigation NAfME. Music and music education are not isolated phenomenon. It is necessary to understand and situate their relationship within the world around them. The same holds true for the publications of professional music standards.

George Heller and Bruce Wilson acknowledge the lack of cooperation and substance in historical music education research. “Cooperation with educational historians has much farther to go. Educational historians have shown little interest in music education history, and few music education historians have been actively involved in educational history.” 34 By analyzing each historical standards publication (the event), the researcher will interweave historical ideas, movements in education, political and

33 Ibid. p. 230. 34 George N. Heller and Bruce D. Wilson. “Historical Research” in Handbook of Research in Music Teaching and Learning, ed. Richard Colwell. NY: Schirmer books, 1992. P. 103. 12

social factors, and people instrumental in the field during the time of these standards publications.

A careful examination of the National Association for Music Education’s

(formerly MENC) archives, housed at the University of Maryland, will be used to investigate the standards. Additionally, the archives will be evaluated for articles, correspondence, journals and educator sentiment during the time of creation and leading up to the creation of professionally endorsed standards for music education.

Professional standards publications from (1921,’36,’38, ’46 ’51 ’74, ’86, ’94,

2014) will be examined, evaluated, and first publication dates verified. A comparison of the standards documents will help determine common elements that may have existed among the music standards throughout the history of public music education.

Utilizing primary sources and first publications of documents will assist in determining the validity of historical documents that may have contributed to each music standards publication. Additionally, interviewing Paul Lehman will assist in better understanding the ideas, people, and politics that may have contributed to the standards.

Significance of the Study

“We can chart our future clearly and wisely only when we know the path which has led to the present.”35 Reflecting on and understanding the historical progression of

35 Barry Hankins. The Second Great Awakening and the Transcendentalists. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004, p. ix. 13

school music education standards can help educators better prepare to meet the future with historically founded ideas. By exploring the external forces that may have shaped music standards, the profession may be able to proactively create a set of standards that help to attend to “…the problematical position in which the profession currently finds itself. . .”36

Through understanding the relationship between music education standards and other educational professional standards, music education will be able to embrace a more holistic place in the public curriculum. The authors of the 1994 National Standards attempted to formulate a prescriptive set of skills and knowledge that every student should have been able to know and do if implemented. The authors admitted the creation of the standards included the mentality that “politically what needed to be included in the standards were those things that would be accepted and not induce controversy.”37

One of the goals of the 1994 National Standards was acceptance by the educational community of the basic status of music education in the school curriculum.

To achieve this goal, the standards were written in such a way that they would “be measurable; in one form or another, each task force member echoed this sentiment.”38

36 Estelle Jorgensen. “Justifying Music Instruction in American Public Schools: An Historical Perspective.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 120, 1994. 37 Cathy Benedict. “Chasing legitimacy: the US National Music Standards viewed through a critical theorist framework.” Music Education Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, 2006, p. 23. 38 Ibid. p. 24. 14

Summary

The proceeding chapters will trace the history of music education standards beginning in 1921 in public music education. Additionally, the political and social backdrop that contributed to the creation and use of these ideas will be presented.

Specifically, Chapter 2 will consist of an examination of the Standards Based education movement that led to the creation and eventual amendment of the 1921 Standard

Course of Study. Chapter 3 will examine the standards work that was done from 1930-

1946. Chapter 4 will detail the development of standards from 1951 through the 1974 publication A Program Standards and Description. Chapter 5 will entail an historical examination of the 1994 National Music Standards, 2014 Music Core Standards, and other educational publications such as: A Nation at Risk, Goals 2000 and No Child Left

Behind, that influenced the development of the national music standards. Lastly,

Chapter 6 will discuss the implications of national standards on music education.

15

Chapter 2 Background and Development of the 1921 Standards

Introduction

The endorsement of a unified system of standards, by the Music Teachers

National Association (MTNA), in 1921 was a result of several factors. The turn of the century presented American educators with several new unique challenges. America was experiencing a tremendous amount of growth, including the creation of the railroad systems, America was becoming a smaller place, busier, and more complex society.

Cities were growing at a larger rate and many rural laborers were leaving their farms for jobs in the cities’ factories. Prior to the turn of the twentieth century, city populations had grown to unprecedented numbers. By 1920 population migration had dramatically impacted the landscape of America and more people lived in urban than rural areas.

During this period, the populations of cities larger than 8000 inhabitants grew from 6.2 million to 54.3 million. Much of the population increase was directly impacted by laborers being drawn to the city. 39 The growing population, along with an unprecedented number of immigrants arriving in America each year, led to a rethinking of public education. “The twentieth century in the United States witnessed the fruition of the public-school movement. It also marked the emergence of the belief that

39 Julia J. Chybowski. “Developing American Taste: A Cultural History of the Early Twentieth Century Music Appreciation Movement.” The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Ann Arbor, 2008. Proquest Dissertation and Theses, http://proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/docview/304449313?accountid=9783. 16

education could be investigated as a laboratory science, as well as a new awareness that schooling was intimately involved in the nation’s social order.”40

The public school movement was as much an intellectual movement as it was a politically and socially inspired reform movement. “Herbert Spencer and John Dewey made education and educational philosophy an intellectual issue. Populism and progressivism made education a political issue. The muckrakers made education a public issue. And, finally the social reform movement—Hull House in particular—was central in confirming the discipline’s social conscience.”41

Populism was an important agrarian movement that united Midwestern and southern farmers, who were discontent with crop prices, credit practices, failing crop yields, as well as a sentiment that wealthy land owners, railroads, and bankers were taking advantage of the farmers. Initially, the group was known as the Farmer’s Alliance, however the Farmer’s Alliance did not have much impact at a national level and reorganized as the People’s Party. As interest grew in these concerns, political ties strengthened and this movement became affiliated with the Democratic party at the end of the nineteenth century. Muckrakers, or investigative journalists, gave voice to many of the concerns raised by the populist and progressive movements. In 1865, the

American Social Science Association (ASSA), was formed in Boston Massachusetts. The

ASSA worked to bring public attention to many social ills, such as: child labor practices,

40 James S. Kaminsky. “A Pre-History of Educational Philosophy in the United States 1861-1914.” Howard Educational Review Vol. 62, No. 2, 1992. 41 Ibid. p., 180. 17

education, rural and urban poverty, working conditions, and other societal concerns.

Through its annual publication, the Journal of Social Science, ASSA emphasized how reformers and education could help eradicate many of these social concerns.

Progressivism moved the philosophy of education into a political realm. Populism and progressivism created an interest in how social democracies could rectify the experience of poverty, deprivation, and subordination. Additionally, progressivism was a deliberate attempt to change learning structures that allowed some to be richly educated and others the working poor.

Hull house was a settlement house founded by Jane Addams and Ellen Starr in

Chicago Illinois. The Hull house was founded as a center for social reform. In the midst of the progressive reform movement, Hull house attracted people interested in solving problems of urban life, such as poverty, working conditions, and educational opportunities. Addams described the purpose of the Hull house was to involve “close cooperation with the neighborhood people, scientific study of the causes of poverty and dependence, communication of these facts to the public, and persistent pressure for reforms that would socialize democracy.”42

Social conscience allowed reformers to push for a state run system of education that was accessible for all. As cities developed, social reformers were more aware of tensions such as; poverty, crime, intemperance, and poor living conditions. Prominent citizens were concerned about the morals of children living in these circumstances and

42 Wade, Louise C. “The Heritage from from Chicago’s Early Settlement Houses.” Journal of Illinois State Historical Society vol. 60 no. 4, 1967. p. 414 18

were greatly concerned that the environment and moral ills of parents would affect the social fabric of America. Social reformers championed an education that would address these social concerns for society. 43

Public education responded by grouping students into grade levels. Elementary students were divided by grade. The creation of high schools allowed grammar school students to pursue additional education. High schools flowed out of the technological innovations that created less need for child workers and allowed students to pursue education longer.

In 1892, the NEA Committee of Ten attempted to standardize the curriculum of high school programs. “Under the leadership of Charles Eliot, president of Harvard

University, the committee undertook a broad and comprehensive exploration of the role of the high school in American life, concluding, significantly, that all public-high- school students should follow a college preparatory curriculum, regardless of their backgrounds, their intention to stay in school through graduation, or their plans to pursue higher education.”44 Only two members of the committee were involved with public education at the high school level. The other members of the committee were respected educators at the collegiate level.

The committee attempted to formulate a curricular plan for high schools that prepared students by training their intellect and prepared them for higher education.

43Diane Ravitch. “American Traditions of Education.” In A Primer on American Schools. Ed. By Terry Moe, Hoover Institution Press, 2001, P. 8. 44 Jeffery Mirel. “The Traditional High School.” Education Next Vol. 6, No. 1, 2006. 19

The secondary school was viewed as an institution to prepare a small segment of

American youth for the duties of life by improving their intellectual abilities. The

Committee saw interested in improving intellectual ability by disciplining the mind, therefore they saw no conflict in envisioning the high school as a college-preparatory institutions.”45 The report was an important first step in the process of education. The acceptance of the report was overwhelming. Within ten years most schools had accepted the committee’s proposal in their curriculum. However, other non-educational concerns such as politics, economics, and social changes, were beginning to make new demands on the school. These demands would profoundly affect the way people viewed education after 1893.46

The report was met with both excitement and opposition. Over the next twenty- five years educators debated the appropriateness of the Committee of Ten's proposal for the high school. A rapidly growing high school population brought new educational considerations to the foreground.47 “Between 1890 and 1930, the number of 14- to 17- year-olds attending high school soared from 359,949, under 7 percent of the age group, to 4,804,255, over 51 percent of the age group.”48 Many educators believed the new student population was less academically talented than previous generations. This belief

45 Lawrence Cremin. “The Revolution in American Secondary Education.” Teachers College Record, vol. 56, no. 6, 1955, p. 295-308 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 4696, Date Accessed: 7/23/2012 46 Ibid. 47 U.S. Office of Education. The Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1955-56 (Washington, D.C.: The Office, 1956. p, 30 48 Ibid. p. 30. 20

fueled arguments that students lacked the intellectual ability and interest for such rigorous academics.49

Many educational reformers felt a comprehensive high school program would better serve students and society. G. Stanley Hall was one such educator. Hall argued a standardized high school curriculum only benefited a small number of students who would pursue a college education. “Hall chastised the Committee for assuming that the best preparation for college was also the best preparation for life. Moreover, he argued that such an academic program would inevitably be diluted in order to accommodate the flood of new students who were entering the high school.”50 Instead, Hall provided educators with a psychology, or science, to better understand child development. In

1892, Hall established one of the first psychological laboratories at Johns Hopkins

University. It was here that Hall would begin his child-centered research, and provide his ideas with a scientific basis.51

Hall’s impact on child-centered educational research was demonstrated in “The content of Children’s Minds on Entering School” in 1893. Hall wanted to compare the differences in children (geographical upbringing, sex, and other factors) with what they already when first entering school and evaluate the effectiveness of standardized

49 Jeffery Mirel and David Angus. “High Standards for All? The Struggle for Equality in the American High School Curriculum, 1890-1990.” American Educator, Summer 1994. http://mtprof.msun.edu/Win1995/Mirel.html . Accessed July 23, 2012. 50 Ibid. 51 Lawrence Cremin. “The Revolution in American Secondary Education.” Teachers College Record, vol. 56, no. 6, 1955, p. 295-308 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 4696, Date Accessed: 7/23/2012 21

educational curriculum on their progress.52 “Conversation with children in collecting the statistical materials would, it was predicted, tend to interesting and surprising results.”53

At the conclusion of the study, Hall advocated for tailoring education in the introductory grades based upon what students knew upon entering them. Hall’s ideas were monumental in the early field of education. Hall proposed that curricular decisions be made from child centered data.54

In 1901, Hall delivered a paper entitled “The Ideal School as Based on Child

Study,” in which he began by stating: “I shall try in this paper to break away from all current practices, traditions, methods, and philosophies, for a brief moment, and ask what education would be if based solely upon a fresh and comprehensive view of the nature and needs of childhood.”55 For Hall, the ideal school would focus less on standardized curriculum and more on child centered curriculum. Hall stated the ideal school would combine the practices and results of modern science and psychology and in doing so would focus on individuality. He believed schooling envisioned in this manner would better support our republic form of government and contribute more fully to the maturity of society. “…That is to be, effectiveness in developing which is the

52 G. Stanley Hall. The contents of children’s minds when entering school. New York, E.L. Kellogg, 1893, p. 4. 53 Ibid., p.4 54Lawrence Cremin. “The Revolution in American Secondary Education.” Teachers College Record, vol. 56, no. 6, 1955, p. 295-308 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 4696, Date Accessed: 7/23/2012 55 G. Stanley Hall. “The Ideal School as Based on Child Study.” National Education Association Journal of Addresses and Proceedings. Washington, D.C., 1901. pp. 475-82, 488. 22

highest and final test of art, science, religion, home, state, literature, and every human institution.”56

Hall was not alone in his criticism of standardized education. Educators and psychologists Froebel, Hall, Thorndike, and Dewey became concerned with the child and how best teachers could facilitate their learning. Froebel was greatly influenced by the ideas of Rousseau and Pestalozzi, and believed the role of the educator was to facilitate learning for the child. “He accepted Pestalozzi’s faculty psychology and the need for exercise to develop the faculties. The teacher’s role was to devise ways to help the child voluntarily engage in meaningful activity.”57 Hall believed education should be transformed from a merely efficient activity into a scientific one and that a scientific education was the key to progress for this new nation.

In 1918, the NEA published a bulletin entitled Cardinal Principles of Education that echoed Hall’s criticism of the Committee of Ten’s report on education. “Thoroughly rejecting the uniform, academic approach of the Committee of Ten, Cardinal Principles instead proposed a multifaceted high school, offering students choices among distinct courses of study.”58 Unlike the Committee of Ten, the Committee for Reorganization of

Secondary Education was chaired by many public educators. This new committee was more representative of secondary school personnel. Ten of the members were affiliated with public schools, nine were from departments of education, and four were from

56 Ibid. P. 488. 57 Mark and Gary. A History of American Music Education. Lanham, Rowan and Littlefield, 2002, p. 220. 58 Jeffery Mirel and David Angus. “High Standards for All? The Struggle for Equality in the American High School Curriculum, 1890-1990.” American Educator, Summer 1994. http://mtprof.msun.edu/Win1995/Mirel.html . Accessed July 23, 2012 23

post- secondary education. The remaining four members were with the Unites States

Bureau of Education and the YMCA..59

The Committee for the Reorganization of Secondary Education CRSE) offered three principle reasons for the need to reorganize education. 60

1. Changes in Society 2. Changes in the Secondary Schools Population 3. Changes in Educational Theory a. Individual differences in capacities and aptitudes among secondary- school pupils. b. The reexamination and reinterpretation of subject values and the teaching methods with reference to “general discipline.” c. Importance of applying knowledge d. Continuity in the development of children

The committee believed changes in society dictated changes in educational theory and practice. The American landscape had been so transformed that education must understand and reflect those changes as well. “Within the past few decades changes have taken place in American life profoundly affecting the activities of the individual. As a citizen, he must to a greater extent and in a more direct way cope with problems of community life, State and National Governments, and international relationships. As a worker, he must adjust himself to a more complex economic order.

As a relatively independent personality, he has more leisure. The problems arising from these three dominant phases of life are closely interrelated and

59 Lawrence Cremin. “The Revolution in American Secondary Education.” Teachers College Record, vol. 56, no. 6, 1955, p. 295-308 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 4696, Date Accessed: 7/23/2012 60 Department of the Interior. Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. A Report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Appointed by the National Education Association. Bulletin 1918, No. 35. Washington Govt. Printing Office, 1918. pp. 7-9. 24

call for a degree of intelligence and efficiency on the part of every citizen that cannot be secured through elementary education alone, or even through secondary education unless the scope of that education is broadened.”61

The changes in the American landscape were also reflected in the school population. According to the federal returns, school population increased from one in every 210 of the total population in 1889-1890, to one in every 73 of the total population in 1914-1915.62 “The Secondary-school population was changing rapidly, in part due to the entrance of large numbers of pupils of widely varying capacities, aptitudes, social heredity, and destinies in life. Additionally, the widening scope of secondary education brought to the school many students who did not complete the full course of schooling, rather leaving at various stages of education. The committee was concerned about meeting the needs of all secondary school students..63

As educational theory and psychology progressed, the CRSE recognized that education needed to embrace and incorporate these changes in educational practice. If education were to champion the new ideal of democracy, it had to change its purview.

“The report is clear about a number of other things. It explicitly assumes that the vast social changes inherent in industrialism and the findings of the new psychology must be taken into account. “64 The CRSE recognized that modern psychology was still a fledgling

61 Ibid. p. 7. 62 Ibid. p. 8. 63 Ibid. p. 8. 64Lawrence Cremin. “The Revolution in American Secondary Education.” Teachers College Record, vol. 56, no. 6, 1955, p. 295-308 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 4696, Date Accessed: 7/23/2012 25

field, yet recognized the importance of accepting this new science and its findings.

While the final verdict of modern psychology has not as yet been rendered, it is clear that former conceptions of general values must be thoroughly revised. The CRSE realized subject values and teaching methods must be rigorously tested in regard to the learning and the transference of this learning to the activities of life. “Modern psychology, however, goes to show that the development of the individual is in most respects a continuous process and that, therefore, any sudden or abrupt break between the elementary and the secondary school or between any two successive stages of education is undesirable.”65

The new comprehensive high school was envisioned as a school that would better embrace the changing American landscape. “It is the ideal of democracy that the individual and society may find fulfillment in each other…consequently, education in a democracy, both within and without the school, should develop in each individual the knowledge, interests, ideals, habits, and powers whereby he will find his place and use that place to shape both himself and society to even nobler ends.”66 The role of education became more than teaching only objective facts, or knowledge. CRSE envisioned education as a way to better prepare students for engagement in home life, civic groups, industry, leisure, and contributing positively to democracy. The commission set forth seven principal guidelines that would serve as the main objectives of

65 Department of the Interior. Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. A Report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Appointed by the National Education Association. Bulletin 1918, No. 35. Washington Govt. Printing Office, 1918 p. 9. 66 Ibid. p. 9. 26

education: 1. Health. 2. Command of fundamental processes. 3. Worthy home membership. 4. Vocation. 5. Citizenship. 6. Worthy use of leisure. 7. Ethical Character.67

The committee’s function wasn’t only to reorganize secondary education. This radical concept would serve all levels of education. “The objectives outlined above apply to education as a whole- elementary, secondary and higher. It is the purpose…to consider specifically the role of secondary education in achieving each of these objectives.”68

The CRSE specifically called for each curricular subject to rethink its purpose and place in public education. “Each subject now taught in high schools is in need of extensive reorganization in order that it may contribute more effectively to the objectives outlined herein, and the place of that subject in secondary education should depend upon the value of such contribution.”69 A committee was formed for each subject area and tasked to evaluate the changes needed to meet the expectations of the

CRSE. Subject committees were responsible for submitting their drafts to the CRSE reviewing committee. The reviewing committee served two purposes: 1. The committee formulated the principles to guide the reorganization of secondary education. 2. It served to criticize and review reports submitted by various committees.70

67 Ibid. p. 10-11. 68 Ibid. p. 11. 69 Ibid. p. 16. 70 Ibid p. 3 27

Development of “A Standard Course in Music”

In 1921 the Music Teachers National Association (MTNA) published “A Standard

Course in Music.” This publication was based on the report the educational council delivered to the U.S. Bureau of Education in 1917.71 “In 1917 four reports were issued dealing with English, Music, physical education, and moral values.”72 On July 3-8, 1921, the “Report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education,” was presented at the fifty-ninth annual meeting of the National Education Association in Des

Moines, Iowa. The CRSE was organized by the National Education Association (NEA) in

1912. The mission of the NEA was “to assist the American high school to become an even better instrument of democracy.”73 The commission for reorganization involved sixteen committees, a reviewing committee which was formed by the sixteen chairmen and ten members at large..74 The total membership of these committees exceeded two hundred members and represented thirty states.75

The educational council on music consisted of prominent music educators; Will

Earhart (chairman), Karl W. Gehrkens, Hollis Dann, Peter W. Dykema, Chas H.

Farnsworth, T.P. Giddings, Alice Inskeep, Osbourne McConathy, W. Otto Miessner, C.H.

Miller, and Francis E. Clark. The members of this council were chosen according to the constitution and by-laws of the MTNA, (Article V Sec. VI.) “The educational council shall

71 MTNA. “A Standard Course in Music.” Music Supervisors Journal Vol. 7 No. 5, 1921. 72 Department of the Interior. Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. A Report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Appointed by the National Education Association. Bulletin 1918, No. 35. Washington Govt. Printing Office, 1918 p. 9. 73 National Education Association. “Addresses and Proceedings of the Fifty-Ninth Annual Meeting held at Des Moines, Iowa.” NEA, Secretary’s Office, Vol. LIX., Washington D.C., 1921. P.3. 74 Ibid. p. 3. 75 Ibid. p. 3. 28

consist of Active Members, who have made some significant contribution to the literature or practice of Public School Music. The Active Members shall elect by ballot the ten (10) charter members of the Educational Council and this number shall be further increased by the election, by the members of the council, of additional members to their body. The term of office in the council shall not be fixed. A member of the council who has allowed his or her membership in the Conference to lapse shall cease to be a member of the council until he or she has been re-installed as an Active Member and re-elected as a member of the council. The council shall elect annually, out of their own body, a chairman and a secretary. The President shall be a member, ex-officio, of the Educational Council.”76

Earhart and the committee faced a difficult challenge. For music, the committee was tasked with carefully and sharply analyzing the “apportionment of the aims, material, procedure, and attainments for each of the years below the high school” as well as, a general statement, with a summary of what may be expected at the end of the course of study in high school.77 The CRSE expressly requested, in all its reports, that each subject was have a clear understanding and statement of aims committing to the goal and purpose of CRSE’s vision. The committee for each subject was asked to carefully select methods and content so that its purpose was explicit. It was understood that no subject would find a place in the curriculum if it did not meet these objectives.

76 Music National Conference. “Constitution and By-Laws Music Teachers National Conference.” http://archive.org/stream/musicnationalcon005238mbp/musicnationalcon005238mbp_djvu.txt. Accessed July 1, 2012. 77 MTNA. “A Standard Course in Music.” Music Supervisors Journal Vol. 7 No. 5, 1921. p. 10. 29

The CRSE explicitly stated that no subject would be welcome in the curriculum if its aims did not contribute to socially valid progress.78

The committee on music responded: “Whatever the knowledge or abilities to be gained, the spirit of music should unfailingly be present, to liberate the mind, broaden the horizon, quicken the mental grasp and give to the facts the musical application and significance that alone confer upon them any claim to value. Sensitiveness to aesthetic values for the sake of the enrichment and elevation of the quality of human life which such response brings is the large result to be attained.”79

The music committee created a statement of values that incorporated the conception of secondary education, as well as contributed to social aims. “The values of music as a high-school subject may be stated as follows: 1. Its aesthetic nature and value. 2. Its value as a socializing force. 3. Its value in the worthy use of leisure. 4. Its value as a vocational subject.”80 Much like the CRSE’s 7 cardinal principles, the four musical values created focused on aims that contributed to social progress.

NEA and the CRSE specifically noted music’s ability to assist with developing the whole student; thereby solidifying a place in the school curriculum. Worthy home- membership and worthy use of leisure were identified as two areas where music could greatly impact the new conception of student education. “Worthy home-membership as an objective calls for the development of those qualities that make the individual a

78 National Education Association. “Addresses and Proceedings of the Fifty-Ninth Annual Meeting held at Des Moines, Iowa.” NEA, Secretary’s Office, Vol. LIX., Washington D.C., 1921. p. 5 79 Will Earhart and Osbourne McConathy. “Music in Secondary Schools.” Bulletin 1917, No. 49. Washington Govt. Printing office, 1917. p. 4 80 Ibid. p.10-11. 30

worthy member of a family, both contributing to and deriving benefit from that membership. Music and art should result in more beautiful homes and in greater joy therein.”81 The CRSE emphasized music’s capacity to develop the student socially; as a member of a community, family, and society. “This objective…should deal with the home as a fundamental social institution and clarify its relation to the wider interests outside.”82(emphasis mine) As industrial conditions improved in American cities, the demand for long working hours was diminishing. Music educators recognized the increase in the number of hours students and families would have to spend leisure time.

Music was viewed as a way to bring many individuals in the community together and music learning and performance would provide people with a leisure time activity to uplift, rather than degrade the individual.

The increase of industrialization of American labor is reflected in the reorganization of education. Worthy use of leisure was so important in the development of school standards that it was both one of the cardinal principles of education and a primary value of music education. In respect to the worthy use of leisure, the CRSE believed “education should equip the individual to secure from his leisure the re- creation of body, mind, and spirit, and the enrichment and enlargement of his personality.”83 This objective was important as it emphasized enjoyment as a common element of music education. Previously, secondary schools had emphasized intellectual

81 Department of the Interior. Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. A Report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Appointed by the National Education Association. Bulletin 1918, No. 35. Washington Govt. Printing Office, 1918 p. 12. 82 Ibid. p. 12. 83 Ibid. p.15. 31

discipline and under emphasized emotional response and positive enjoyment in subjects such as music, literature, or art.

The committee for music education, not only understood music’s capacity for leisure, but also recognized the aesthetic nature and sensitizing attributes music could affect on students. “Music is one of the most potent…agencies for bringing about such an end. The power of music…is greatly increased when the individual himself takes part in a musical performance.”84 The music committee wanted to show that music could contribute more to the new comprehensive high school. In the opinion of the music committee, the aesthetic nature of music contributed to the emotional development of students. “The intensification of feeling tends to energize the individual toward action, and that aesthetic elevation of feeling tends to lift the plane of any resultant action.”85

These results were thought to be more vital when the student was involved in the performance, giving ensemble music an important place in the new school.86

Music’s social contribution was continually highlighted. Ensembles were thought to be able to illustrate the interdependence of social relationships. Communities, civic groups, churches, and families shared in the musical “joys of social intercourse.”87

Studying past music and peoples was thought to contribute intellectually to the students understanding of other societies and cultures. Additionally, musical performances “bring as many people together as any single agency…music has the power to imbue these

84 Will Earhart and Osbourne McConathy. “Music in Secondary Schools.” Bulletin 1917, No. 49. Washington Govt. Printing office, 1917. p. 14 85 Ibid. p. 13. 86 Ibid. p. 13. 87 Ibid p. 13. 32

persons with social consciousness…then surely we have here a social force of much importance.”88

Lastly, music was considered valuable also as a vocational subject. This aim of music education mirrors another of CRSE’s “cardinal principles;” vocation. The music committee demonstrated the growing teaching and business industry of music as a viable career. “An army of persons are engaged in the musical profession in this country, and approximately six hundred million dollars are spent annually for musical performances and in musical education.”89 Music and music education represented a growing industry that would need capable members to continue its success.

As a result of the evaluation of the role of music in the curriculum, a guiding text was created. In Music in the Secondary Schools, Will Earhart, chairman of the music education committee, and Osborne McConathy recommended specific coursework that should be offered in secondary schools: choir, orchestra, glee clubs, music appreciation, theory of music, and applied music, or credit for outside musical work.90 The same recommendations were included in the 1921 printing of “A standard course of study” in the Music Supervisors Journal.

88 Ibid. p. 13-14. 89 Ibid. p. 14. 90 Ibid. p. 30-34. 33

Standard Course in Music Accepted

A Standard Course in Music was presented at the Music Supervisors’ National

Conference April 8, 1921. The new course outlined specific aims and procedures for music education throughout secondary education. For the first time, music educators were given a set of “best practices” that would incorporate the new ideals of education with music. Along with the printed standards; aims, materials, and procedures through the eighth year of secondary education (see Appendix A), the council on music documented other items of concern for music in public schools.

The committee advocated for every school, rural or city to provide students with a comprehensive music education. “Music is now generally recognized as a universal human need and no longer as a luxury for the few…The time has come when music must be made available to every child in the entire country whether in city or rural schools.”91

The committee insisted music instruction be part of the regular school day, consistent with other subjects, such as science, math, and reading. “Music has proven itself worthy to be classes as a major subject, coordinate with reading, writing and arithmetic and must no longer be considered an adjunct more or less superfluous and unrelated to educational process.”92

91 Educational Council. “A Standard Course in Music.” Music Supervisors’ Journal Vol. 7 No. 5, 1921 p. 12. 92 Ibid. p. 12. 34

The work of Hall, Carl Seashore93, and Herbert Spencer were influential on the science and psychology of music, as well as supporting the justification for music to be a part of the regular school day. It was necessary for music education to be viewed in a similar vein as other subjects. “As the nation began to forge a business society, school boards and administrators began to favor subjects that reflected the new mechanization. They wanted subjects organized scientifically and evaluated accurately.”94

Herbert Spencer, an influential writer and sociologist, armed music educators with an argument justifying music as a scientific subject. An article in Fraser’s magazine, published in July 1876 and entitled, The Origins and Function of Music, presented a hypothesis that music like other subjects is entirely based on science. Spencer postulated that sensations, result from muscular stimulus. “A smile, which is the commonest expression of gratified feeling, is a contraction of certain facial muscles; and when the smile broadens into a laugh, we see a more violent and more general muscular excitement produced by an intense gratification.”95 These ideas, based on a

93 Carl Seashore was a prominent psychologist and part of a group of late 19th and 20th century psychologists who wanted to move the field away from philosophy (formerly called mental philosophy which utilized the method of introspection,) towards an empirical science. Seashore is also considered by many to be a leading figure in the specialized field of music psychology. Seashore was instrumental in developing a psychology of music which he used to create an important assessment and measure of individual student talent in music. In his text, Measurement of Musical Talent, Seashore states musical talent is natural, inherited at birth and not acquired over time. Seashore’s test (Seashore Measures of Musical Talent or sometimes referred to as Seashore Tests of Musical Ability) measured the respondent’s ability to ascertain pitch, loudness, tempo, timbre, and rhythm. This new field of music psychology, coupled with this musical test to evaluate student understanding of musical concepts was a monumental and an impactful element in music teaching and learning. 94 Mark and Gary. A History of American Music Education. Lanham, Rowan and Littlefield, 2007, p. 186. 95 Herbert Spencer. Fraser’s Magazine The Origins and functions of music. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=336&chapter=12353&layo ut=html&Itemid=27. Accessed May 1, 2012. 35

physiological response, helped justify the learning and practice of music. Spencer believed all music was an evolution of vocal music, and that vocal music is produced by the use of certain muscles. Spencer further postulated that music being a physical phenomenon is also an evolutionary display of feelings.

“We have here, then, a principle underlying all vocal phenomena; including those of vocal music, and by consequence those of music in general. The muscles that move the chest, larynx, and vocal chords, contracting like other muscles in proportion to the intensity of the feelings; every different contraction of these muscles involving, as it does, a different adjustment of the vocal organs; every different adjustment of the vocal organs causing a change in the sound emitted;—it follows that variations of voice are the physiological results of variations of feeling. It follows that each inflection or modulation is the natural outcome of some passing emotion or sensation; and it follows that the explanation of all kinds of vocal expression, must be sought in this general relation between mental and muscular excitements.”96

Charles Farnsworth, a member of the educational council, further defined standards and measures as very important for the legitimacy of the profession. “A standard of measure is free from all opinion, and is based upon actual facts of accomplishment as far as they can be gathered…The essential things that determine the value of music teaching, for instance, are the love awakened and the knowledge and technique gained. The knowledge and technique we can measure, but love pertains to the world of spirit, and eludes us. It escapes from any form of measurement.” 97

In a letter to the Louisville Journal, Osbourne McConathy, a member of the educational council on music, emphasized the standards of measurement.

96 Ibid. 97 Charles Fansworth. “The Educational Council.” MSJ Vol 8 No. 1, 1922. p. 24 36

“This method of teaching [rote] music lays the foundation in error and hedges up the way to a thorough understanding of this branch of ornamental science. The best master of music may take charge of a child thus incorrectly taught, and ten chances to one if he never able to correct the evil habit of trusting to memory and of the imitation of sounds, because the mind has received an unscientific impression, and the child continues to smatter on in music the balance of its days. The other method of teaching is directly the reverse of the foregoing, and the master endeavors in the first place to teach the children the principles of music whether vocal or instrumental, and to cause the children to understand them well before he allows them to commence singing. He teaches them the sound and length of notes, and so on, and exercises them in reference specifically to the fundamental principles of the science, and thereby satisfies himself that they understand these things, and then allows them to commence singing.” 98

The address, ‘Music Section of the Educational Congress,’ presented at

Harrisburg, Pa. in 1919, demonstrated the influence science and psychology had on music education. “The chief characteristic of our present civilization is that it is scientific; and, through the application of science to industry, it is also industrial and commercial.

We live in the reign of the rational intellect…We have discovered that the intellect of man does not compass the full measure of his powers.”99

Additionally, the music education council presented an argument for the number of minutes dedicated to music instruction. If music were to serve its purpose, it not only had to be viewed as an integral part of the curriculum, it needed to be provided time, qualified instructors, and the necessary resources required for music education. “Music

98 Robert W. John. “Nineteenth Century Graded vocal Series.” Journal of Research in Music Education, vol. 2 no. 2, 1954, p. 104. 99 “Place of Music in the School Curriculum and Requirements for Supervisors.” Eastern School Music Herald, vol. 3, no.6, 1920, p.12. 37

must be given a fair amount of time of the school day, not only as an art subject…but as a subject broadly educational.” “ In a daily schedule of 300 or more minutes,…not less than 15 minutes daily in primary grades…20 minutes daily in intermediate grades,…25 minutes daily in grammar, junior high, and high school grades.”100 To ensure quality music education, each school needed properly trained supervisors and music educators.

“…the requirements necessitates in every city, town, and county a thoroughly well trained director of music….The music supervisors of the county request every State

Superintendent to issue teachers’ certificates only to those who are qualified to teach music…the same proportionate rating as any other subject.”101

Finally, the council recommended the following as necessary equipment for the teaching of music courses: “…to make music effective must include a key-board instrument available for each class, pianos of good grade for piano classes, recitals, etc. and a good phonograph and carefully selected library of records. There must be an ample supply of textbook and supplementary material…”102

Standard Course in Music Summary

A Standard Course in Music represented the first printed set of standards endorsed by both the NEA and music education professionals. This set of standards also provided music educators with summaries of attainment for each year of study. “The

100 Educational Council. “A Standard Course in Music.” Music Supervisors’ Journal Vol. 7 No. 5, 1921 p. 12. 101 Ibid. p. 12. 102 Ibid. p. 12. 38

Conference recommend the following summary of music accomplishments as a standard of attainment…”103 The committee recommended, by the end of the first year of study, students should acquire the use of singing voice and enjoyment in song as a means of expression. The second year goal can be summarized as instilling enjoyment of music as something heard and performed/expressed. Third year attainments were: every student acquired a repertoire of songs, “including “America” and “The Star-

Spangled Banner.””104 At the end of the fourth year of study, it was expected that students had developed aural understandings: “Every child should have developed aural power to know by sound, that which he knows by sight and vice versa.”105

Additionally, students were supposed to have acquired the ability to read notation in unison, two part, and easy three-part harmonies. Students were expected to understand and decipher all types of accidentals, major and minor key signatures, common rhythmic figures, and be “of the grade of difficulty of folk-songs such as the

“Minstrel Boy.”” 106 In the fifth year, students should have been given extended opportunities to cultivate music performance. The end of the sixth year was characterized by “a love for the beautiful in music and taste in choosing their songs and the music to which they listen for enjoyment and pleasure which only good music can give.”107 By the end of the seventh year, students were expected to understand

103 Ibid. p. 12. 104 Ibid. p. 12. 105 Ibid. p. 13. 106 Ibid. p. 13. The “Minstrel Boy” is a popular Irish folk song composed by Thomas Moore. Moore set the lyrics of Minstrel Boy to a familiar Irish air, The Moreen. It is often suggested Moore wrote this song in remembrance of many of his friends who fought and died in the Irish Rebellion of 1798. The folk song gained prominence in post-antebellum America and resounded more with the public after World War I. 107 Ibid. p. 13. 39

structure and form, recognize three part song form, and recognize by sound the title and composer of “standard vocal and instrumental compositions.”108 Lastly, students should have achieved “the conception of music as a beautiful and fine essential in a well-rounded, normal life.”109

Subtitle needed.

The NEA’s project of reorganizing public schools was an important milestone in education reform. K.W. Gherkens, and other music educators questioned the way previous teachers considered educating their pupils. “Those who made these various music systems left out a highly important factor in the equation…They failed to consider the child -his feelings, his instincts, his capacities.”110 In a seminal address, “Music for

Every Child,” before the Music Supervisor’s National Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio,

April 1924, Otto Miessner, a member of the educational council on music, embraced the trend of modern education and described how music served to meet these changing needs. “In the past the children have been forced to fit the schools; in the future we shall change the schools to fit the children. The lock-step and the goose-step in education are to be abolished; iron-clad traditions banished from our schools.”111

Miessner referenced a quote from John Tigert, U.S. Commissioner of Education, on the importance of music in public schools

“It is becoming universally recognized that education in music fundamentals is an important part of our school processes. Music, in my

108 Ibid. p. 13. 109 Ibid. p. 13. 110 K.W. Gherkens. “The Evolution of Public School Music in the United States: the Twentieth Century: A Singing Revival.” Music Supervisors Journal vol. 10 No.3, 1924, p. 10. 111 Otto Miessner. “Music for Every Child.” Music Supervisors’ Journal vol. 10 No. 5, 1924. p. 11. 40

opinion, might well be taught through the grades from the kindergarten up to and in the high schools…In addition to giving our children an appreciation and understanding of music for its aesthetic value, it has the effect of training the memory, quickening perception, stimulating the imagination and encouraging concentration.”112

Dr. Lotus Coffman, President of the University of Minnesota, addressed educators in 1925, four years after the Music Supervisors Conference accepted “A

Standard Course of Study,” about the “new” education the CRSE had advocated: “…The field of education certainly reveals that it has acquired a new character. More attention has been given to the humanizing of knowledge, to the personalizing of materials, to the protective character of the schools, to the enrichment of the curriculum, to the significance and meaning of the psychology of individual differences and to an improvement of the technique of instruction.”113

The reorganization of secondary education led to several different ideas of curricula that competed for prominence.114 The comprehensive school, built on social reform and equal access, was bold and revolutionary. “Such is the report's radical departure from tradition; it clearly espoused the new conception of equal educational opportunity inherent in G. Stanley Hall's "pedocentric" school.”115 Music education was viewed as an important part of the New School. Music could be justified scientifically, as well as, given an opportunity to teach humanity. “…the high school became an agency

112 Ibid. p. 12. 113 Dr. Lotus Coffman. “The New Education.” Music Supervisors’ Journal Vol. 11 No. 3, 1925. p. 72. 114 Kliebard, The Struggle for the American Curriculum. New York, Routledge, 2004. 115 Lawrence Cremin. “The Revolution in American Secondary Education, 1893-1918.” Teachers College Record Volume 56 Number 6, 1955, p. 295-308 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 4696, Date Accessed: 7/15/2012 10:13:10 PM 41

with no less a goal than the progressive amelioration of every individual and social need.”116 The work of the Educational Council on music was both important and historic.

By understanding the shift in educational policy, Will Earhart and the committee, were able to envision music education in way that was both new and accepted by the NEA, as well as, music educators. The first set of standards, “A Standard Course in Music,” allowed music to embrace the reorganization of schooling, and give educators guides and aims for the teaching and learning of music. This would become an important part of the Music Teachers National Association: to research, study, and adopt standards and policies that would continue to exemplify music education as an important part of public curriculum.

116 Ibid. 42

Chapter 3 Standards from 1930s-1940s

Introduction

The 1930’s and 40’s proved to be an era of unprecedented challenge for music education and education in America. America and its public schools would navigate the

Great Depression, World War II, and Post War economies. Many were concerned that music would be overlooked in favor of vocational subjects.117 “The leaders of the

Conference (MTNA) met the threat by pointing out the importance of music in the economic life of the nation, and by raising the standards of achievement in their classes and in the preparation of new teachers.”118 Although challenging, this period of time often is characterized as an era of unparalleled growth for music education. At no time before had there been a larger number of qualified music teachers, students, learning standards and curriculum, and organized, meaningful research. Music education didn’t merely survive this era; it experienced a tremendous surge forward.119 This chapter will examine the events and trends that may have influenced the creation of these official declarations, (1930 republished 1936, 1940, 1946) authored and published by the Music

Supervisors National Conference (MSNC). It is without question that MSNC exerted tremendous influence in the development, discussion, research, and publication of materials directly related to the expansion of music curriculum and standards. Their

117 John Molnar. ‘Changing Aspects of American Culture as Reflected in the MENC.” JRME vol. 7, no. 2, 1959, pp. 174-184. 118 Ibid, p. 176. 119 Carolyn Livingston. “MENC and Music Education:1933-1957 Survival and Growth through a Challenging Era.” JHRME vol. 28, no. 2. Pp. 111-126. 43

influence, as a professional organization, was paramount to the success of public music education.

Defining Progressive Education

At the 1931 meeting, MSNC, formally changed the National Research Council of

Music Education to the Music Education Research Council (MERC).120 This change was done in part to expand the council’s purpose. “The research council shall…conduct studies and investigations of such broad phases of music education…and on the basis of its findings shall make reports, interpret educational tendencies, and recommend general educational policies.”121 The reports and recommendations generated by the research committee became the basis of conference policies and educational practice.

As the role of the Music Teachers National Association (MTNA) expanded so did the goal of MERC. The research council became responsible for the creation of standards and curriculum that positively impacted music’s place in the public curriculum.

Progressive education exerted its greatest influence in American public education between 1917-1947. Many historians assert that the progressive education movement “…began as an attempt to cast the school as a lever of social reform in the struggle for equality.”122 Lawrence Cremin, in his ground breaking book The

120 Fred Warren. A History of the Music Education Research Council and The Journal of Research in Music Education of the Music Educators National Conference. Proquest dissertation and theses, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1966. 121 Ibid, p. 3. 122 Thomas W. Miller. “The Influence of Progressivism on Music Education, 1917-1947.” JRME, 1966 Vol. 14 No. 1, p. 3. 44

Transformation of the Schools, describes the progressive education movement as

“…part of a vast humanitarian effort to apply the promise of American life… to the

puzzling new urban industrial civilization that came into being in the latter half of the

nineteenth century.”123 Progressive education provided insight into American

Progressivism writ large. Progressive education began as an attempt to use public

schools to improve the lives of individuals, and in doing so, improving social

democracies.

Progressivism, and progressive education, meant for music education that social aspects of music became the primary focus to connect education to the experiences of the student beyond the classroom walls. Prior to the progressive movement in American education, music education was primarily concerned with conservative and traditional measures of success; “…thus the reigning philosophy of education prior to the advent of progressive education was essentialism… conformity was evidenced by a preoccupation with music reading, involving drill and memorization- symbolic learning directed toward disciplining the mind.”124 The learning standards of 1921, A Standard Course of Study in

Music, illustrate this sentiment. Many of the aims were centered around rote song learning, the ability to aurally identify small groups of tones, memorize simple rhythms and melodies, and memorizing traditional and popular folk songs.

123 Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1961, p. viii. 124 Thomas Miller. “The Influence of Progressivism on Music Education, 1917-1947.” Thomas W. Miller JRME, Vol. 14 No. 1, 1966, p. 8. 45

The progressive education movement can be broadly broken into sub-divisions, or movements of educational pedagogy. “Progressive education exhibited both conservative and liberal philosophical premises within the movement and within its phases.”125 The conservative premise of music education sought to use testing to determine which students should or should not receive a musical education. This extreme view was challenged by liberal progressives who believed that assessment should determine what music knowledge should be taught, but all students should have a musical education. “The liberals insisted that the science of education movement implied that music education must offer something of value to all students regardless of their differing abilities; the conservatives emphasized the traditional values and used the discoveries of the testing movement to reinforce the status quo.”126 Many of the MTNA’s beliefs and goals can be better understood when viewed with the historical understanding progressivism had on American education. “Within progressive education, three distinct phases were discernible; each had its corollary in music education, ” these three phases will be examined individually but are identified as; the science of education

(or testing) movement, the concept of the child centered school, and social reconstruction.127

125 Ibid, p.13. 126 Ibid, p. 13. 127 Ibid, p. 9. 46

Many in music education embraced the science of testing and measuring as the profession grappled with refining its teaching method. The science movement became well established and gained support in public education.

“If science promised nothing else, it promised efficiency, this ultimately was the plum the educational scientist dangled before the taxpaying public. The promise itself was not new…the NE’s Department of Superintendence in 1911 appointed a Committee on Economy of Time in Education, charging it with formulating recommendations for the systematic removal of waste from the school curriculum.”128

Statements of Belief Established

Many educational movements influenced and shaped the work of this committee. “Music education was affected by the major movements in the field of education…among important educational movements were those of testing, child study, the activity centered curriculum, the establishment of the junior high school, and general education.”129 The testing movement had reached such intensity that a regular department on the subject was established in the Journal. 130 An outgrowth of the testing movement became the focus on the study of the individual child. After 1924, articles and studies devoted to the individual child appeared with more frequency in journals and conference proceedings.131 These movements—testing and measurement, individual child, activity education, and the development of junior high schools in education—were prominent in shaping the way MSNC researched, studied, and created

128 Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1961, p. 192-193. 129 John Molnar. “Changing Aspects of American Culture as Reflected in the MENC.” JRME, vol. 7, no. 2, 1959, p. 177. 130 Ibid, 131 Ibid. 47

materials in support of music education. “As early as 1914, the Conference began to formulate statements on aims in music education, and official declarations on this subject were issued by the Conference in 1930, 1940, and 1946.”132

In the 1930 October issue of Music Supervisors Journal an official statement of belief and purpose was published. The statement represented the culmination of work by members of the research council, past presidents, regional leaders and the editorial board.133 In this statement of belief, the association provided a number of steps that the profession would need to follow to accomplish the aims of music education. It stated:

Every child should be given the opportunity to sing, play an instrument of their choice, participate in organized performance, and feel the empathy and understanding that music can portray. …the full measure of these benefits is best guaranteed by affording to children, during the impressionable years of their public school life, the opportunity to respond to those unselfish and idealistic interests that are native to children before stern utilitarian motives begin to usurp their energies and attention.”134

It was further noted that MENC embraced and championed progressive thought and implementation for music education. “The Music Educators National Conference, therefore, in full acceptance of its responsibility as the representative and champion of progressive thought and practice in music education, bespeaks united effort through every available medium in behalf of a broad and constructive program… ”135 In order to accomplish these goals it was decided that a comprehensive program should include:

132 Ibid, p. 184. 133 “A Statement of Belief and Purpose.” Music Educators Journal, vol.22, no. 5, 1936, p. 23. 134 Ibid, p. 23 135 Ibid, p. 23 48

1. The interrelation of musical interests and activities of school and community. 2. Increased opportunities for participation through promotion of musical organization within the various social, recreational, industrial and institutional units. 3. The popularizing of playing and singing as a recreational and leisure-hour activity. 4. Encouragement of home-circle singing and playing. 5. Greater attention to the small ensembles-both vocal and instrumental. 6. Improvement of choir and congregational singing in the churches and Sunday schools; increased use of choral singing, orchestral and instrumental ensemble playing in connection with church activities. 7. Development of festivals- both choral and instrumental. 8. Encouragement of discriminating hearing of music. 9. Fostering active interest in the music of the amateur (both school and community) on the part of professional musicians, composers, artists, conductors and teachers. 10. Provision for musical development and guidance of citizens of all ages and in all walks of life through a comprehensive plan of supervision- school and community, county and state.

Music Education and Progressive Education

Music education was concerned with determining what a child should know, in what grade it should be learned, and determining each child’s musical abilities.136 Many music educators wanted to improve the efficiency in which they taught and students learned. Frederick Work went as far to suggest that using a native endowment test may be a useful tool in structuring and delivering instruction. He stated: “Children have

136 Frederick Work. “What We May Expect from Tests and Measurements in Music Education?” Frederick Work. Music Supervisors Journal. vol. 14, no. 1, 1927, pp. 78-80. 49

different capacities for musical growth. Should we try to force a child equipped with meager native ability to keep pace with one who abilities are twice as great? Should we compel a child to study violin or piano whose motor response is unusually slow?

Assuredly not. If not then we must know what his capacities are. Here a good innate capacity test is useful.”137

The science of music education became a driving force in the development of

quality music education. The science movement was embraced in large part through

other academic subjects embracing and supporting the scientific method in the

classroom. The science of education movement sought to apply the scientific method to

education through objective testing to illustrate the assumption that no two children

were identical in ability. “…We are discovering, as have our fellow teachers of

arithmetic, spelling, and reading, that science has something worthwhile to contribute

to the art of teaching music.”138 However, leading music educators struggled with how,

what, and why they should test. “The term science as it related to education, had an

equally varied history…the term took on many new meanings and applications in the

American educational world.”139 These included multiple definitions; systematic

approaches of teaching, efficiency, standardized course content (such as curriculum,

etc.) and varying educational, psychological and management theories. Perhaps this

confusion of the term led to music education slowly adopting a scientific view of

137 Ibid, p. 79. 138 “Editorial Mosaics.” Music Supervisors Journal vol. 17, no. 1, 1930, p. 17. 139 Jere T. Humphreys “Application of Science The Age of Standardization and Efficiency in Music Education.” Bulletin of Historical Research in Music Education. vol. 9, no. 1, 1988, 50

teaching and learning. As stated (cite source of the following quote), “It is indicative of our past attitude, as a professional group, to the application of the scientific method to music teaching, that Smith and Salisbury’s study was reported in a psychological journal, not in one of our own professional magazines.”140 This served as a reminder that MSNC would be more open and supportive of publishing and disseminating research and materials related to the scientific method of teaching. Conference members “…may be assured that the editors are heartily in favor of making the Journal the organ for providing the profession with a knowledge of what its members are doing to improve music teaching through research and experimentation.”141

Much work was carried out by the Conference on testing and measurement in music education. From approximately 1925-1929 the MSJ published dedicated research through its Tests and Measurements Department, headed by Peter Dykema. In 1927,

Bulletin No. 7 was published, “Survey of Tests and Measurements in Music Education.”

This report was completed by a committee of leading music educators; Peter Dykema,

Mabelle Glenn, and Paul J. Weaver and examined the “…current status, problems, and principles of scientific measurement.”142 The tests and measurement committee was tasked with facilitating, disseminating, and publishing research that could describe and ascertain the capabilities of music students, teachers, and curriculum. As part of the survey on tests and measurements it became evident “…that testing in the art subjects

140 “Editorial Mosaics.” MSJ, vol. 17, no. 1, 1930, p. 17. 141 Ibid, p. 17 142 Fred Warren. A History of the Music Education Research Council and The Journal of Research in Music Education of the Music Educators National Conference. Proquest dissertation and theses, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1966, p. 40. 51

posed a special problem—that of measuring the affective processes aside from the cognitive.”143 This influenced music’s late adoption of scientific measurement and evaluation. It was difficult for many music educators to understand how the scientific measure of an artistic field like music was possible. “The art subjects have been the last to come within this investigation, and procedure regarding evaluating many aspects of the art subjects is by no means as yet agreed upon.”144

Music education eventually began to embrace and utilize scientific study. It was agreed that tests were a necessary way to evaluate growth and learning. The eventuality of music education to adopt the testing movement philosophy and practice was necessary. The committee concluded that it was inevitable for music to be subjugated to scientific evaluation as it was an incredibly influential aspect of school instruction and music has certain qualities or aspects that are factual and easily measured. “…Ultimately each must prove his own worth by its effect upon someone or something other than himself. The ascertaining of this effect, the finding out whether the desired result has been produced, is the essence of all tests and measurements.”145

The music education testing committee further defined this new movement into two classifications; aptitude and achievement. “In general they (tests) may be described as being in two divisions- those having to do first of all with native endowment, and secondly, with the use made of this endowment.”146 Furthermore, the committee

143 Ibid, p. 41. 144 National Research Council of Music Education. “A Survey of Tests and Measurements.” Music Supervisors Journal vol. 13 no. 5, 1927, p. 18. 145 Ibid, p. 17. 146 Ibid, p. 19. 52

clearly delineated that aptitude tests should be further subdivided. “Aptitude, endowment, or native powers are again subdivided into three groups- those having to do with sense discrimination, those having to do with motor ability, and thirdly, those having to do with feeling or sensitivity.”147 Sensory tests evaluated musical elements of pitch discrimination, intensity of sound, such as loudness or softness, the amount of time sounds occur or time between sounds, and consonance discrimination.148 Aptitude tests measuring motor ability sought to determine how quickly and accurately someone could manipulate their hands or fingers that comprised a physical measurement that could be used to determine one’s ability to play an instrument. Lastly, feeling or sensitivity tests sought to measure taste, “…through general principles and through experiments with many musicians—it is sought to determine whether or not the person who is being tested has a good or poor discrimination of what is generally accepted as desirable or undesirable in melody and in harmony or harmonic combination.”149

The committee also described what achievement tests were and what they attempted to measure. “These seek to measure what has been done irrespective of the aptitude or native endowment with which the children started…we may , for instance, determine whether the child knows the name of the composer, the name of the composition, the key, the time signature, the rhythms, the name of the note, how long the notes is to be held, whether the music goes up or down, etc.”150 It was the music

147 Ibid, p. 19. 148 Ibid. 149 Ibid, p. 21 150 Ibid, p. 26. 53

achievement test, however, that seemed to vex music education. “The measurement of another aspect of music, which probably in many ways is the most important one, that of appreciation, is largely undetermined, possibly for no other reason than that practically no one has yet been able to set up a standard which has been generally accepted as to what is to be attempted in music appreciation.”151 Furthermore, Peter

Dykema was skeptical of material used in music achievement tests. After reviewing the

Kwalwasser test of music appreciation, he concluded, “the desire to make the material conform to that criterion which states that a perfect score should be practically impossible has allowed the inclusion of certain material which does not seem typical or vital.”152

In the end, four guiding principals were stated in the report on tests and measures. The first principal was evaluating any testing material to determine what the test intended to reveal. It was necessary to determine what the test would measure and how that information would be significant. The committee cautioned, “it is futile to test or examine without a definite aim.”153 The second guiding principal cautioned music supervisors to carefully distinguish between measuring results and processes and to have a plan to evaluate both. Third, the committee urged educators to have a means of

“appraising the amount of the product and the quality of the product in relation to each other and to the time consumed.”154 Fourth and last, test administrators were

151 Ibid, p. 28. 152 Peter Dykema. “Recent Developments in Music Testing Material.” MSJ. vol. 13, no. 3, 1927, p. 61. 153 National Research Council of Music Education. “A Survey of Tests and Measurements.” MSJ vol. 13, no. 5, 1927, p. 29. 154 Ibid, p. 29. 54

encouraged to consider the reaction of the students being tested. “The fourth aspect which must be considered in all measurement and one that thus far has received slight attention is that of the pupil’s attitude or reaction.”155

As a result of their work, the committee, in the journal of proceedings yearbook

1927, published a set of guidelines that were recommended for adoption by the

Conference if a music supervisor wanted to use testing material in their curriculum.

1. The aim of a test must be clearly defined as well as the significance of the information desired. 2. Desirable results must not only be achieved, but must be achieved economically in terms of time and correctly in terms of study habits. 3. There must be a means of appraising the quantity and quality of the result in relation to each other and to time consumed. 4. Pupil attitude and interest must be given a place among the aims of testing in music. 156

It was the hope of the committee that tests would provide legitimacy and validity to the field of music education. “As a result of these tests…we may be able greatly to improve our music teaching by definitely focusing for us what things we ought to attempt to do…the test and measurement movement, therefor, should mean a stabilizing, a systematizing, and a rendering music education much more pleasant and agreeable.”157

155 Ibid, p. 29. 156 Paul Weaver editor. Music Supervisors National Conference Journal of Proceedings, Twentieth Year. Durham, Seeman Printery, 1927. P 17-24. 157 National Research Council of Music Eduation “A Survey of Tests and Measurements.” MSJ, vol. 13, no. 5, 1927, p. 29. 55

The endorsement of the testing committee, however, would not cement the testing movement’s acceptance in all of music education. “Stances on the need for testing musical knowledge varied from: the Conservative view, testing in order to know who should qualify for a music education, the Liberal, who believed all children should have an equal education, and the Social Reconstructionist view that evaluation can only occur in a social setting.”158 For example, at the turn of the century, John Dewey was instrumental in challenging the educational philosophy of both the conservative and liberal essentialists. Essentialists believed there was a common core of knowledge that all music students should know and it should be taught in a systematic and disciplined way.

Progressives such as Dewey disagreed. “Dewey regarded the arts as the measure of the culture; he stressed the social meaning of the arts as well as their instrumental values to the development of the individual child.”159 As a result, music education became an important component in helping the progressive movement bridge the divide between the school and social reform, thereby altering the aims and goals of music education and broadening the programs and practice of music.

Progressive Ideals: Child-Centered/Social Reconstruction

The progressive era saw music educators developing and formalizing curriculum,

methodologies, and standards that were rooted in how children learn. “The child study

158 Lida Blatz. The Progressive Movement in Music Education: Influences on the the Turn of the 21st Century. Florida Atlantic Univeristy, Ann Arbor, 2007, Proquest Dissertation and Thesis, p. 19. 159 Ibid, p.70. 56

movement was largely responsible for making clear the present aim of school music, which is that every child shall appreciate and take pleasure in music, not in a vague and indefinite future, but here and now.”160 This view of music education sought to include all students equally, not just students that may have been identified as gifted or talented through testing measures. The belief was held that all children were inherently creative and could best learn through their own creative efforts. Many educators believed that enjoyment, participation, and appreciation of music and music making should be the primary focus of music education. Samuel W. Cole stated, “a much nobler, grander, more inspiring privilege is yours and mine; to get the great mass to singing and to make them love it.”161

In 1936 James Mursell published a paper in the Thirty-Fifth Yearbook of the

National Society for the Study of Education entitled, “Principles of Music Education.” In this paper Mursell illustrated many of the progressive points that ran counter to the testing movement. Mursell began by stating that many recent discussions in education had been about procedure, “owing to the close relation of method to teaching, this condition was perhaps inevitable at a time when the music programs of our schools were taking shape, and the entire movement was not well established.”162 However,

Mursell notes that many in education are questioning these ideas: “but within recent years, there has been a notable growth of interest…to seek a guiding philosophy of

160 Edward B Birge. The History of Public School Music in the United States, Philadelphia, Oliver Ditson Company, p. 163. 161 Ibid, p. 162. 162 Ed. Guy Montrose Whipple. The Thirty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part II Music Education. Bloomington, IL., Public School Publishing Company, 1936, p. 3. 57

music education.”163 Mursell believed that there was a considerable growth of interest in controlling principles and that “we may welcome this growth of interest as a sign of increasing maturity and of the deepening sense of responsibility that has come with the successful promotion of school music.”164 Mursell saw this interest as a positive and held that “controlling principles” had many values, including:

1. Controlling principles indicate the directions in which valid progress must be sought in future activities in music education. 2. Controlling principles are criteria for judging procedures of all kinds. Most of the practical questions that music educators must face can be decided intelligently only in the light of such principles. 3. Controlling principles provide a unified and coherent view of music education in all its aspects. 4. General principles are applicable to all situations. 5. General principles provide a rational basis for the defense of the music program to general educators, to members of school boards, and to the public at large.

Mursell believed that these principles were imperative for the unification of music education. The controlling principles could serve as an internal guide for music educators, while the general principles affected student learning and public perception.

Music education had spent a great deal of time of the early twentieth century advocating for its place in the public curriculum and that recent trends indicated it once again grappling with measuring its own self-worth and importance. “Such a unified view

163 Ibid, p. 3 164 Ibid, p. 3. 58

is urgently needed. We are confronted with divisions between music education in schools…such divisions have caused most serious misunderstandings and a grave waste of energy, and they have measurably compromised the general aim of promoting music in the life of our country.”165

Mursell believed, like many other music educators, that a common body of principles would help unify music education’s place in public life, especially within schools. He believed that music education provided an organized opportunity for meaningful experiences. In order for a music program to deliver on this promise, a music education program “…should provide for increasing awareness, interest, and insight regarding music.”166 This idea was in stark contrast to the idea of the testing movement. Mursell and most liberal progressives thought that there were three major errors in the testing doctrine: that music should be taught for the sake of mental training, that the acquisition of techniques is the primary end of music education, and having knowledge about music (facts) rather than experience with music is most important.167

When music is taught for the sake of cognitive training only, the emphasis is placed upon musical facts exclusively, such as score reading, notation, etc. Mursell and others concern was that while important, if these elements of music education were primary, the true value of music education was minimized and given a secondary place

165 Ibid, p. 3. 166 Ibid, p. 5. 167 Ibid, p. 5. 59

in the curriculum. “These are matters that, though doubtless important, are essentially secondary. When given a primary place, all the values of the program are falsified.”168

The second error with a cognitive only purpose for music was that it therefore emphasized motor technique primarily, whether in vocal or instrumental performance.

“In schools we often find an undue emphasis upon voice production, upon motor facilities with various instruments…while we by no means disparage these abilities or fail to recognize their importance, we insist that when given first place, they throw the whole program out of line.”169 Lastly, when music education becomes singularly focused on musical facts and knowledge about music it devalues the personal, communal, and experiential qualities of music education. “Much of the educative value of music turns on the remarkable degree to which it offers esthetic experience that shall be participative and active rather than merely passive and absorptive.”170

To structure a music program that valued participation and activity, Mursell argued an approach must have many elements that were non-compromising; listening, singing and playing of music, creation (improvisation or composition), social experience, development of technique, and acquisition of knowledge. It was believed that active, directed listening was paramount to better understanding and participation with music.

Being able to sing or play an instrument171, Mursell argued, was the bedrock for

168 Ibid, p.5 169 Ibid, p.5. 170 Ibid, p. 5. 171 Interestingly the phrase able to sing or play an instrument alone or with others is an important part of the 1994 and 2014 music learning standards. Perhaps Mursell’s insistence was carried throughout into the later learning standards. 60

enjoyment with a musical education. “It may be well to point out here that the esthetic, rather than the techinal (sic), aspects of musical performance are the sources of its educative value- that is to say, the experience of actually giving utterance to musical beauty with voice or instrument is more important than the sheer technique displayed.’’172 Lastly, the creation of music is incredibly important to allow students to express ideas, moods, and creativity through the creation of tones or melodies. Music creativity is unique and extraordinary, and often not given importance in the musical curriculum. “…The creation of music need not await the achievement of an expert grasp of theory. It can begin in the third grade, and it is not seldom undertaken even in the kindergarten.”173

Further, Mursell states that, “Music is a unique social art. The music class is a group of students working and learning songs to present to an audience. The typical musical experience implies an audience and a group of performers. Therefore, musical ensembles are uniquely developed to be an “ideal type of social project.”174 Thus, he believed that school music programs were uniquely designed to offer children social experiences. “School music experiences have great value for the general social development and adjustment of the child.”175 Learning music with others and then presenting the music in concert, represented a great social opportunity in the learning and performance of music.

172 Ibid, p.6. 173 Ibid, p. 6. 174 Ibid, p. 7. 175 Ibid, p. 7. 61

The development of performance technique was an important aspect in progressive education as well, although it was not given the primary position of importance. Additionally, technical mastery wasn’t important for the sake of having technical mastery. Its importance was solely in the ability to use the technique. “Every skill, mental or motor, should be learned for the sake of its expressive use. Its educational value resides precisely in its use…”176 Music educators then needed to provide students with an organized opportunity to use the skills that have been taught.

Additionally, Mursell and other progressive educators wanted teachers to assess how technical skill was taught. In the testing movement an undue emphasis had been placed on skills and drills. The opposing thought espoused that “all technical skills are acquired best and most rapidly in connection with musical problems and not through schemes of formal drills…and …the teaching of various techniques should be associated closely with growth in musical insight.”177

Lastly, the acquisition of knowledge about music was considered an important element of music education as well. However, the facts and information of music were not more important than esthetic or social concerns. Mursell argued that an experience with music or a performance would be more meaningful if there also was an understanding about the music, composer, or history. Additionally, musical experience can add value to musical knowledge. Mursell cautioned that “…the true educative value

176 Ibid, p. 8. 177 Ibid, p. 9. 62

of our music program by no means resides primarily in whatever of knowledge-content we associate with it.”178

Mursell recommended that music programs have standards for sequential activities to ensure that the primary value of music education was emphasized. A music program should have standards and they should be adhered. However, they should never become the primary focus of musical instruction.179

National Society for the Study of Education and Standards

In 1936, the National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE) released the thirty-fifth yearbook on music education. The NSSE, according to its constitution, was an organization whose “purposes are to carry on the investigation of educational problems, to publish the results, and to promote their discussion.”180 The Society was governed by its board which included: George S. Counts, Frank N. Freeman, M.E. Haggerty, Enest

Horn, M.R. Trabue, Willis L. Uhl, Guy Montrose Whipple. The responsibility of the

Society’s Board of directors was to: “(1) select the subjects to be investigated, (2) to appoint committees calculated in their personnel to ensure consideration of all significant points of view, (3) to provide appropriate subsidies for necessary expenses,

(4) to publish and distribute the committee’s reports, and (5) to arrange for their discussion at the annual meetings.”181

178 Ibid, p. 10. 179 Ibid. 180 Ibid, p. ii 181 Ibid, p. ii 63

The members of the NSSE’s committee on music education included the following: Francis L. Bacon, a principal at Evanston Township High School; John W.

Beattie, Dean of the School of Music at Northwestern University; Peter W. Dykema, professor of music education at Teachers College, Columbia University; Russell V.

Morgan, the director of music in the Cleveland Public Schools; James L. Mursell, an assistant professor of education, Teachers College, Columbia University; Ms. Anne E.

Pierce, assistant professor of music, State University of Iowa; and Willis L. Uhl, Dean of the College of Education, University of Washington.182 NSSE made every effort to diversify and include qualified committee members for the discussion of music education purpose and values. Additionally, this report included contributions from twelve other music educators, from a variety of educational levels. The NESSE board prepared a report in “recognition of the growing interest in music in American schools…the purpose of the yearbook was to provide an authentic statement of the basic principles of music education and an account of the various music activities in schools.” 183

The topics for the thirty-fifth yearbook were discussed by the NSSE Board of

Directors in 1933 and were selected at their three-day conference in Chicago in April

1934. NSSE collaborated closely with the MENC: “In carrying out this purpose, there has been close cooperation with many of the leaders of our sister organization, the Music

Educators’ National Conference, several of whose officers have contributed to this

182 Ibid, p. iv 183 Ibid, p. xi 64

volume.”184 The topics that were decided upon were chosen because they represented many of the “unsettled problems in music education- problems that often lead to conflicting judgments and practices.”185 The NSSE committee was careful to ensure that a positive approach was adopted in the culmination of this project. Additionally, the committee was careful to include varying views on the topics that were discussed: “The approach was recognized by the authors as one that would encourage the preparation of the best practical statements now possible for them to make. This Yearbook is believed to be, therefore, a defensible working basis for a program of school music.”186

The NSSE worked closely with the MENC to discuss and develop ideas that would support and sustain music education in public schools. The MENC had worked tirelessly on developing courses and standards for public education and the NSSE had taken on the task of furthering their work: “The Committee in general and the chairman in particular are deeply obligated to the Music Educators’ National Conference. Without the years of preliminary work of that organization, and without its continuing counsel and activity, this project could not have been finished.”187 As a result, the work to support and advance music education in public schools was shared by two national organizations that were well respected.

The thirty-fifth yearbook on music education was discussed at the Saint Louis

Meeting of The National Society for Education on Tuesday, February 25, 1936. The

184 Ibid, p. xi 185 Ibid, p. xi 186 Ibid, p. xi 187 Ibid, p. xii 65

meeting was called to order by Dean M.E. Haggerty who served as the chairman for the board of directors: “The Tuesday evening session was devoted to a discussion of Part II of the Thirty-Fifth Yearbook, entitled Music Education, which had been prepared for the

Society by a Committee of well-known authorities on public-school music under the chairmanship of Dean Willis L. Uhl.”188 According to the minutes, the session was not well attended due to the “counter-attraction of speeches by several notable politicians given at the same hour in another part of the same building.”189

It is important to note that this presentation about music education was unusual for the NSSE, as the session included four performing groups. “The program was of unusual nature for our Society, owing to the fact that the subject matter of the

Yearbook was illustrated on the platform by four groups of pupils from St. Louis and

Vicinity.”190 The session included presentations by Willis L. Uhl, who introduced the

Yearbook, a performance by the University City High School Chorus from University City,

Missouri: music performed by the Vashon High School Choral Club from St. Louis, MO; a presentation entitled “A Balanced Music Curriculum” by James. L. Mursell; a performance by the Shepard School Band from St. Louis MO; a presentation entitled,

“What Music Education May Mean for a Superintendent of Shools”, by Edwin A. Lee; and lastly a musical performance by the Webster Groves String Ensemble- a high school from Webster Groves, MO. 191

188 Ed. I.L. Kandel. The Thirty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part II Music Education. Bloomington, IL., Public School Publishing Company, 1937, pp. 367-368. 189 Ibid, p. 368 190 Ibid, p. 368. 191 Ibid, p. 368. 66

As MENC continued to grapple with how to secure the place of music education in the public school curriculum much time was spent researching and evaluating how to include music education as a vital part of school curriculum. No doubt inspired by the vast attention music education was receiving in academic research (such as the report by NSSE) and through MENC’s own research and committees, the MENC issued a public resolution on the purpose of music education in the schools that was presented at the

1940 meeting in Los Angeles. In this resolution, MENC recognized the importance of music and the role it played in society. “Throughout the ages, man has found music to be essential...”192 and recognized the importance of setting forth guiding principles for music programs. MENC believed that “the responsibility of offering every child a rich and varied experience in music rests upon the music teacher.”193 Therefore, MENC pledged its united efforts to ensure that all programs would include:

1. Provision in all the schools of our country, both urban and rural, for musical experience and training for every child, in accordance with his interests and capacities. 2. Continued effort to improve music teaching and to provide adequate equipment. 3. Carry-over of school music training into the musical, social, and home life of the community as a vital part of its cultural, recreational, and leisure-time activities. 4. Increased opportunities for adult education in music. 5. Improvement of choir and congregational singing in the churches and Sunday schools; increased use of instrumental ensemble playing in connection with church activities.

192 MENC. “Report of Resolutions Committee.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 26, no. 6, 1940, p. 27 193 Ibid, p. 27. 67

6. Encouragement and support of all worth-while musical enterprises as desirable factors in making our country a better place in which to live.194 195

The 1940 conference renewed and inspired the work that was being done within music education. The Los Angeles conference focused heavily on problems of teaching music to students in elementary and junior high school levels. This meeting continued the focus on establishing the aims and values of music education. It was now a priority to focus on music education at all levels in public schools. “There is no doubt that much has been done in many sections of the country to develop music at levels below the high school; but all too often music people have been prone to give the greatest amount of attention to the “upper” levels, and to the groups that are able to present a more spectacular show to the public.”196

To this end, in 1942 President Lilla Belle Pitts appointed over 500 conference members to thirty-eight curriculum committees under the program Widening Horizons for Music Education.197 President Pitts was well equipped to head a committee on the study of music education in the schools. Pitts had also written about the “place of music in a system of education” for the thirty-fifth yearbook of the NSSE.198 Much like Mursell,

194 Ibid, p. 27. 195 This public resolution mirrors many of the concerns, traced historically, beginning in 1921. MENC is still focused on providing access to a large number of students, ensuring teachers are properly trained, using music for leisure and social betterment, as well as improving community music making and social democracy. These are common themes throughout music education standards beginning in 1921. 196 Ibid, p. 28. 197Fred Warren. A History of the Music Education Research Council and The Journal of Research in Music Education of the Music Educators National Conference. Proquest dissertation and theses, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1966 198 Ed. Guy Montrose Whipple. The Thirty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part II Music Education. (Bloomington, IL., Public School Publishing Company, 1936. 68

Pitts saw music as an invaluable subject in public school curriculum. In her view public schools presented “…a pattern of living designed to promote specific learning and to inculcate definite attitudes and ideals…our schools should be dedicated to pointing the way to ideal possibilities and to providing meaningful experiences that will enable young people to grow in the appreciation of values.”199 In her view, music helped schools accomplish this mission. Music was a subject that could increase an awareness of values. The nature of music classes enabled a group of students to participate together for a common goal. This was an important part of the values of music education.

Additionally, Pitts believed that music provided opportunities to improve individual student and overall school morale, as well as develop habits of good citizenship. Lastly, she believed that music provided a beneficial leisure activity outside of the school day.

Many of her beliefs became the same beliefs supported by MENC in its resolutions of

1940.

Reflection

The work on developing the 1940 standards for music education was not easy.

Although more than 500 members served on committees, it didn’t make the task of agreeing on the values of music education simple. The Music Education Research

Council (MERC) worked tirelessly on developing the “Standard course of Study in Music.”

199 Ibid, p. 17. 69

In fact this work was carried out during the period of 1932-1942 with little success.200

The revised course of study was completed for both the primary and intermediate levels of instruction. Karl W. Gehrkens compiled the primary report,: the intermediate report was completed by Edward B. Birge. The primary course of study was divided into five distinct sections: Objectives, Evidences of Growth and Achievement, Correlation and

Integration, Individual Differences, and Materials.201 The objectives of primary music education, generated by the committee, (grades 1-3) were to: 1) ensure the proper use of the singing voice, 2) enable students to understand and bodily response to musical rhythms, 3) be able to listen to and create music, 4) understand musical form (through singing, listening, and rhythmic movement), and 5) learn the basics of musical notation.202

In a similar vein, the intermediate course of study (grades 4-6) “…affirmed as proper for the intermediate grades the activities of singing, ear training, rhythm work, sight reading, appreciation and creative work.”203 Many of these values and aims submitted by the curricular committees are echoed in the work of Mursell Pitts, and other progressives of music education of the time. The course of study for the intermediate grades did not recommend any standards of achievement, rather it stressed the importance of musical experience and community. “In line with the trend

200Fred Warren. A History of the Music Education Research Council and The Journal of Research in Music Education of the Music Educators National Conference. Proquest dissertation and theses, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1966. 201 Ibid. 202 Ibid. 203 Ibid, p. 86. 70

of the times, the report did not set up rigid standards of achievement for all pupils.

Achievement was stressed as the goal of all music teaching, and progress was to be measured by an abiding interest in music rather than by fixed achievements in tonal memory, rhythmic responses, sight reading, or other skills.”204 Birge and the committee believed that the two general objectives of music education were enabling students to hold an appreciation of music throughout their life and to prepare for a career in a musical field if desired. The musical outcomes of the intermediate and primary Basic

Program for Music Study aligned well. The musical objectives of the intermediate level were discriminative listening, beautiful part singing, instrumental performance and creative expression.205

The Basic Program of Music Study for the secondary grades was not as fortunate.

Karl W. Gehrkens, committee chair, recommended that the project be given back to the council to collaborate and complete as a whole.206 In fact in a letter from R.V. Morgan to

Osbourne McConathy, described the difficulty of the task: “There has also been made a start on the revision of the standard course of study by a committee headed by K.W.

Gherkens, but the task proved to be so onerous that after two years of effort the entire matter has been thrown back to the Council, and will henceforth be conducted by the

Research Council as a committee of the whole.”207 A preliminary report by the high

204 Ibid, p. 87. 205 Ibid. 206 MENC. Yearbook of the MENC, Twenty-ninth Year, Chicago, MENC, 1936. 207 Letter from R.V. Morgan to Osbourne McConathy, March 25, 1942. 71

school committee was all that ever came to fruition.208 Determining the ultimate aims and goals of music education proved to be a difficult task, but one that MENC spent a great length of time and resources to answer.209

When Lilla Pitts appointed the Widening Horizons committees in 1942, it it was at the time that the MERC was ending its deliberations about a basic program of study for music. The work picked up by President Pitts and other members of the MENC was difficult but important. Over many years to come, committees continued to study and deliberate regarding the aims and values of music education in the schools.

The 1946 National Conference proved to be an important national convention.

The 1946 meeting was held in Cleveland, Ohio and shortly before the National

Conference took place, MENC released a composite of reports from the committees on school music curriculum from 1944-45. In March of 1946, the Music Educators Journal

(MEJ) published an article that supported a music curriculum for the elementary school.

In this curriculum, much of the early work (1932-1942) is seen. The elementary school curriculum, as published by MENC, stated that music instruction should include several general musical experiences: singing experiences, listening and rhythmic experiences, playing experiences, and creative experiences.210 Unlike previous recommendations, this

208Fred Warren. A History of the Music Education Research Council and The Journal of Research in Music Education of the Music Educators National Conference. Proquest dissertation and theses, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1966. 209 Perhaps the Great Depression was a leading cause of the revised standards document never being completed. According to Michael Mark, a leading music education historian, the depression deeply affected America’s public schools and MENC. Many schools eliminated entire departments of music and art, in an effort to save funding for other curricular interests. Also, during this period MENC was without funding to pay staff, organize conferences, and support financially research or projects. Travel across the country was also affected and the ability for the secondary committee to meet regularly was negatively impacted. . 210“The Music Curriculum of the Elementary School.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 32, no. 4, 1946, p. 72

curriculum also offered specific musical experiences that were designed to ensure a quality music education. These included: singing games, rhythm orchestra, classroom singing, creative songs, keeping musical scrapbooks, playing instruments, school programs, attending professional events for young listeners, music festivals, church music and listening lessons.211 It is clear that based on the work of many music educators, such as the curriculum committees, Mursell, NSSE, and many others, educators felt the need to embrace progressive ideals in music education.

At the 1946 convention, MENC released a “Declaration of Faith, Purpose and

Action”, presented by the council of past presidents.212 This declaration was

“unanimously adopted by the MENC at the twenty ninth annual convention at Cleveland

Ohio, April 1, 1946.”213 The members of the past presidents included Edward B. Birge,

Peter W. Dykema, Will Earhart, Karl W. Gehrkens, Osbourne McConathy, R.V. Morgan, and Lilla Belle Pitts, as well as many others. It is interesting to note the involvement of these individuals, as they were all intimately involved in the development and study of music curriculum and defending its importance in public education.

The resolution reaffirmed the faith of MENC in the value of music, its importance in helping shape attitudes, feelings, and emotions, and its contribution to communities at large.

211 Ibid. 212 “Front Matter: A Declaration of Faith, Purpose and Action.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 32, no. 5, 1946, p. 16. 213 Ibid, p. 16 73

The past presidents recommended that an increased emphasis be placed on programs of music in the elementary and junior high grades and that 1)each state department of education include a State Supervisor of Music, 2) schools should stress the importance of string music and playing, 3) continued efforts be placed on high school music, 4) more students be included in its study, 5) some emphasis should be placed on the skill of reading music, 6) every school allot a minimum of 100 minutes per week for effective music instruction that included technology (such as radios and records) to schools and teachers, 7) music teaching should be seen as an exponent of the democratic process, 8) schools and educators broaden the scope of musical experiences, 9) international cultural relations through music should be stressed, and

10) schools should be provided with the musical materials needed for success.214

While all of those involved in the school music education profession may not have agreed if the testing and measuring movement was the true core of musical learning— if the progressive broad approach was best— one thing holds true: Much work was devoted toward research, discussion, and collaboration on assessing the values and aims of a music program during the 1930s and 40s. Many highly qualified educators and professors devoted their life to ensuring that music education’s purpose and place would be cemented in the public school curriculum. Professional organizations, such as MENC and NSSE, spent a vast amount of time and energy exploring the rationale and impact of music in public education.

214 Ibid, p 16. 74

Chapter 4 Standards in the 1950s and Forward

Introduction

The mid twentieth century proved to be a challenge for public education, as well as music education. While public educators were looking for unifying themes in the midst of growing criticism, music education was seeking a unifying philosophy to replace the progressive education movement that was quickly losing favor.215 Additionally,

America’s public education saw an increase in measuring achievement standards, teacher education, and an emphasis placed on academic disciplines. This chapter will examine the reform movements that led to the creation of MENC’s Child Bill of Rights and the revision of an Outline of a Program for Music Education in 1951, as well as, documenting the efforts of MENC through the publishing of the 1974 The School Music

Program: Description and Standards.

MENC Work pre-1950

Much of the advancement of music education during the early part of the 1950’s was in large part based upon the work of the Widening Horizons Curriculum

Committee.216 President Lilla Belle Pitts was responsible for creating and organizing this initiative. Pitts was concerned with music education being broad enough for all students and for it to find its proper place in the school curriculum following the return home

215 James L. Mursell. “Music Education at the Crossroads.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 37 No. 4, 1951, pp. 23-24. 216 William E. Knuth. “For the Advancement of Music Education. A Symposium by the Recently Elected Presidents of the MENC Divisions.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 36, no. 1, 1949, pp.28-35. 75

from World War II.217 “We have prepared some of our children and youth to participate in a variety of musical activities of such amazing breadth and excellence that we are now challenged to re-examine our purposes in the light of the musical needs of all of the children and youth of this land.”218 Pitt’s desired to reconcile music’s value and importance with public perception and support. “We, who wish to make the service of music essential in furthering the progress of democratic ideals, need to see our professional position as it is related to the moving trends of each and all of the arts of communication closer to the everyday life of our mass population.”219 Ms. Pitts challenged music educators to make music education a necessary component of public education curriculum and social progress. Ms. Pitts implored music educators to evaluate how the music education profession could improve. “As I see it we have two big jobs to undertake: one, more effective planning; the other, more efficient leadership.”220

As we have seen before, the music education curriculum has often been debated and changed as needed, Pitts suggested that the music education profession carefully examine its curriculum in the schools. “The confusion of our times added to the already

217 World War II was a significant event in world history, and played a large role in shaping many MENC initiatives and ideas. However, little evidence suggests any concern was evident, over the events in Europe, during the the 1940 conference in Los Angeles, according to Michael Mark, the ward caused a significant delay in many MENC led programs and caused irreparable harm to music programs across the country. One such change was the number of periods offered in a day; in an effort to save electricity schools eliminated periods from the end of the day to give students an opportunity to finish homework at school. Musical instruments also became difficult to rent or buy, as the government put an excise tax on many items.

218 Lilla Belle Pitts. “Widening Horizons for Music Education.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 30, no. 4, 1944, p. 17. 219 Ibid, p. 17. 220 Ibid, p. 17. 76

complex design of general as well as music curricula definitely indicates a need for careful diagnosis.”221 She encouraged music educators to seek broad and long lasting solutions, rather than immediate and lesser concepts that would not “…keep pushing toward the ideal despite all obstacles.”222

The theme of the biennial meeting in St. Louis 1944 was Widening Horizons for

Music Education.223 Much of the St. Louis meeting was devoted to the work of Lilla Belle

Pitts and the Horizons Committee. “These meetings of the curriculum committees…will form a working background for the general sessions and other major events of

Conference week.”224 Curriculum committees met Thursday, March 2nd, Friday, March

3rd, Saturday, March 4th, and Monday, March 6th and culminated with a keynote speech,

“Widening Horizons in Teacher Education”, presented by James Mursell.225 In the address Mursell argued that the most important and singular task of music education was to create a universally accepted, popular, and vital music culture for everyone.226 “I want to suggest that in these days here together we resolve to accept it for ourselves individually and for our Conference, as a focus of common action, and as the key to the future…”227

221 Ibid, p. 17. 222 Ibid, p. 55. 223 MENC. “Widening Horizons for Music Education.” Music Educators Journal. Vol 30 No. 3 1944. 224 Ibid, p. 13. 225 Ibid. 226 James. L. Mursell. “Our Widening Horizon.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 30 No. 5 1944, pp. 12-13, 50-51. 227 Ibid, p. 12. 77

Music Education and shifting ideas

For music education to implement meaningful changes, Mursell highlighted three key features about what the post-war landscape may require from music education. Mursell argued that the first key point to consider was the public’s positive attitude toward music education. He went as far to suggest that in this post-war education, the public was more than receptive, they were “hungry” for more musical experiences.228 Secondly, he stated the public school system was in a position of “… flux and manifestly on the verge of a great advance.”229 Public schools were seen as an instrument of social change and following the war, schools would be used “… for reorienting the nation to the demands of peace, ” and organizations like MENC could use their expertise to make recommendations for school curriculum.230

Lastly, Mursell argued that MENC’s growth and professionalism would benefit the cause of music education in post-war curriculum. “Third, we ourselves are far from negligible. Our numbers are large. Our organization is aggressive and enthusiastic. Years of experience have given us quite a range of working ideas and considerable “know how.””231 Following Mursell’s ideas to move music education forward educators needed

228 Mursell was correct in advocating an increase in musical presence. During the second World War, President Roosevelt called for more bands, parades and patriotic sentiment throughout the nation. Much like World War I, music educators prepared lists of patriotic songs for students and communities to learn. At a board meeting in October of 1940, MENC adopted the theme “American Unity through Music.” During the war music educators placed a focused emphasis on fulfilling President Roosevelt’s edict: Michael Mark, in his text History of American Music education, illustrates how MENC developed four key areas to increase music in communal life. MENC gave careful attention to singing national songs, developing respect for a wide variety of culture and races in the United States through music, singing folk songs, and the giving attention to the work of American composers. 229 Ibid, p. 12. 230 Ibid, p. 12. 231 Ibid, p. 12. 78

to be prepared to advocate for changes. In his 1944 Keynote address Mursell recommended a number of steps that would keep music educators focused and cohesive as they worked to expand the role of music education.

According to Mursell, music educators needed to recognize that musical experience was the cornerstone for strong music programs. “First and foremost we must squarely recognize that vital, authentic, compelling, direct music experience is the only thing that really does the business.”232 Educators need to understand the importance of authentic, direct musical experience and urge school authorities and the community to support music in this manner. The primary concern for music education is to ensure children receive music experiences in abundance.

“Authentic, convincing, direct, varied experience with music is the only instrumentality which can do the job we contemplate…We want varied and significant musical activities to have an important place in their curriculum. This requires changes in the curricular arrangements, administrative arrangements, marking and student accounting.”233

Continuing, Mursell urged music education needed to promote a strong musical culture for all students, not just those students who were inclined or showed a natural talent for music. Further, it wasn’t enough for music education to offer classes to all students, but the profession needed to connect and appeal to all students through meaningful musical experiences. “Our line of endeavor must not be to get music

232 Ibid, p. 13 233 Ibid, p. 13. 79

required of all but to make it attractive and available to all- to develop programs which are hospitable and inclusive rather than snobbish and exclusive.”234

Lastly, Mursell urged educators to “interpret musicianship as realistic human service.”235 In the wake of World War II, America and public schools were faced with increasingly difficult social realities; death, wounded soldiers, etc. Mursell hoped educators would encourage students to not only achieve musical understanding at a high level, but also perhaps more importantly aim to teach students how to use music for a greater social need. Mursell stated: “But I hope from their enterprise they will learn to become something better than good musicians-humanly serviceable musicians, knowing what it means to bring their art and skill to bear on human need.”236

The wartime conference of 1944 in St. Louis helped solidify the movement of the

Widening Horizons Committee, and the work of Lilla Belle Pitts ensured music education had a large and important role in post-war American education. Music educators were challenged to advocate for music education, but the work of the Conference and committees ensured that “…we shall be able to bring this movement of ours into broader lands and ever widening horizons.”237

234 Ibid, p. 13. 235 Ibid, p. 50. 236 Ibid, p. 51. 237 Ibid, p. 51. 80

MENC Post-war Period

As music education continued to evaluate and analyze itself for public education, greater opportunities for MENC materialized.238 “MENC made tremendous strides with professional activity in the forties. Two great membership-wide organization projects contributed to this progress: (1) The “Widening Horizons” and (2) the “Music Education

Advancement” programs.”239 These initiatives led music education away from school music approaches that emphasized skilled performing organizations at the expense of other music offerings and inclusion of all students.240 “The Music Education

Advancement Program is the natural outgrowth of the Widening Horizons Curriculum

Committee organization, set up in the years immediately preceding and during World

War II.”241

The MENC Advancement Program was conceived to evaluate the needs, at all levels of learning as well as provide in depth collaboration and cooperation, for every person interested in the profession of music education. Additionally, the objective of the Advancement Program and curriculum committees were to highlight the work being done at a local level that could be applied at the state, division, or

238 MENC had devoted a great deal of time and energy during the war to ensure music education would continue to be a vital and important part of public school curriculum. During the war, fifty representatives from the six districts of MENC met to discuss wartime concerns and look to the future. According to Michael Mark, the reports of the “Six-Fifties” were numerous and thorough and showed a preoccupation with the status of music after the war. One of the primary concerns was the completion of unifying the state and national level music organizations. Additionally, music educators were concerned about the number of school periods, adding more classes for creative musical activities and further developing scientific methods for analyzing music education problems. 239 Marguerite V. Hood. “Music Education Source Book Number Two.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 41, no. 6, 1955, p. 11. 240 Ibid. 241 William E. Knuth. “For the Advancement of Music Education. A Symposium by the Recently Elected Presidents of the MENC Divisions.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 36, no. 1, 1947, p. 28. 81

national levels.242 Through the work of many committee members, the Music Education

Advancement Program created a fourteen-point action schedule entitled “Advancement

Program for Action.”243 These fourteen points emphasized topics that music educators and MENC could develop to further garner public and administrative support of music education. The original action schedule to carry out the program was first published in the Music Educators Journal in 1946 and reprinted in 1947.

The major elements of the MENC action schedule included:

“(1.) public relations, which sought to inform the public about music education, as well as, give the public an appreciation of music and the profession of music education. (2.) School-community relations, sought to develop local projects in cooperation with the school for musical programs. (3.) School music budgets, where studies and other aids needed to be used to better inform the school board and taxpayers for the purposes of acquiring sufficient school funding. (4.) Special Services was an initiative of MENC to increase the services and materials available to teachers, administrators, and community members. (5.) Music Education Activities encouraged the cooperation of all organizations (local, district, state, etc.) for the promotion of all musical activities for students and community members. (6.) Research, to continue supporting Music Education Research Council (MERC) as well as other music research that can advance the field. (7.) Music Curriculum, to utilize the findings from the four-year study in the music education source book, as well as, assist in further studies for the benefit of music education. (8.) In-Service Teacher Training, work with state associations to provide high-level professional development. (9.) Economic Status of Teachers, work with the National Education Association (NEA) to enlist public support for adequate teacher salaries.244 (10.) Teacher Recruitment, work with NEA to address the critical shortage of teachers as well as develop a plan with MENC to foster a greater interest and mentoring of anyone interested in the profession. (11.) Future Music Teachers, by utilizing student membership groups, MENC could identify pre-service students that are interested in music education. (12.) Cooperation with Other Organizations and Agencies, continue to work with other organizations, including the U.S. Office of Education to advance the work of music education. (13.) International Cooperation, to continue the

242 Ibid. 243 Ibid. 244 This initiative and teacher recruitment were two areas that the Advancement Program believed were fundamental to their purpose. 82

cooperation with music educators in other countries. (14.) Interorganizational Cooperation, continue to work between affiliated state associations for the purposes of advancing music education material.”245

Each of these action items was compiled over a four year period “…in which thousands of MENC members participated through the nation-wide curriculum committee organization, the wartime consultants’ councils and the various other facilities provided for pooling of experiences and constructive thinking, led logically and inevitably to the long-range plan of action.”246 The work being done through these numerous committees was extensive and important. While Widening Horizons was discussing curricular needs, the Music Education Advancement Program was evaluating ways to stay vibrant and necessary in the minds of the public.

Additionally, the MENC special projects initiative was active during this period looking at specific areas of music instruction that could be further explored and offered in the changing education environment. The MENC special projects that were created during this time included: piano instruction, films in music education, records in music education, radio in music education, folk music, creative music, opera in music education, string instruction, school-community relations and activities, state-wide music education programs and student membership and student activities. All of these committees and projects of the pre and post-war period impacted greatly the material published by MENC in the early 1950s.

245 MENC. “Front Matter: The MENC Action Schedule.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 33 No. 6, 1947, p. 28. 246 Claude B. Smith., et al. “The Forward March has Begun.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 33. No. 6, 1947, p. 29. 83

MENC 1950 and forward

The MENC biennial meeting in St. Louis, Missouri in March 1950 was an important meeting for music educators. Much of the work that had been started in the years prior was now carried forward. Music educators were engaged in study and debate about the necessity of music education for the public. The theme of the 1950 biennial meeting was “Music Education and Society.”247 This theme was chosen with the view that it was necessary for music educators to accept their important role, as music education has “…a definite obligation to society here in the United States and other parts of the world.”248 MENC worked to develop general conference sessions that had broad reaching implications for music education: “Education and Life,” “Education and

Peace,” “Human Relations in Education,” and “The Challenge to Music Education.”249 In addition, MENC leadership organized special sessions to examine music education’s role in a changing public school environment. These special sessions included: “Audio-Visual

Aids in Music Education,” “Is the Music Industry in Step with Education,” “Music

Education as a Profession,” and “Music for Everybody.”

“Music for Everybody” was the final special session of the 1950 conference and included representatives from a number of organizations such as: St. Louis Music

Sponsors, National Congress of Parents and Teachers, American Music Conference, and members of MENC special committees on School-Community Relations and Activities

247 Vanett Lawler. “The St. Louis Program Reviewed.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 36 No. 5, 1950, pp. 16-19 and 58-59. 248 Ibid, p. 17. 249 Ibid, p. 17. 84

and State-wide Music Programs.250 The conference topics illustrated the continued direction of MENC to explore the importance of music education and foster support with organizations and communities capable of assisting in music education advocacy efforts.

The final general session of the 1950 conference, “The Challenge to Music

Education,” was organized as a panel discussion to summarize and concentrate the convention’s theme and program. James Mursell introduced the final session by saying;

“In the course of this noble convention, you have been reminded that music is rich in human values, full of benefit for individual lives, full of social significance…with the implication that it should provide the basis of our practice.”251

During the 1950 conference dedicated, to “Music Education and Society,” MENC adopted an important resolution, The Child’s Bill of Rights in Music. Encouraged by the

United Nations 1948 Bill of Rights, music educators developed a document for music education and public school students. MENC was influenced greatly by the UN document and in particular two articles. Article XXVI states; “everyone has the right to education which shall be directed to the full development of human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”252 Article

XXVII states; “everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the

250 Ibid. 251 James L. Mursell. “The Challenge to Music Education.” Music Educators Journal Vol. 36 No. 5, 1950, p. 21. 252 MENC. “The Child’s Bill of Rights.” Music Educators Journal Vol. 36 No. 5, 1950, p. 15. 85

community, to enjoy the arts, and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”253

The MENC council of Past Presidents presented six articles in The Child’s Bill of

Rights in Music for adoption by the conference.

I. Every child has the right to full and free opportunity to explore and develop his capacities in the field of music in such ways as may bring him happiness and a sense of well-being; stimulate his imagination and stir his creative activities; and make him so responsive that he will cherish and seek to renew the fine feelings induced by music. II. As his right, every child shall have the opportunity to experience music with other people so that his own enjoyment shall be heightened and he shall be led into greater appreciation of the feelings and aspirations of others. III. As his right, every child shall have the opportunity to make music through being guided and instructed in singing, in playing at least one instrument both alone and with others, and, so far as his powers and interests permit, in composing music. IV. As his right, every child shall have opportunity to grow in musical appreciation, knowledge, and skill, through instruction equal to that given in any other subject in all the free public educational

253 Ibid, p. 15. 86

programs that may be offered to children and youths. V. As his right, every child shall be given the opportunity to have his interest and power in music explored and developed to the end that unusual talent may be utilized for the enrichment of the individual and society. VI. Every child has the right to such teaching as will sensitize, refine, elevate, and enlarge not only his appreciation of music, but also his whole affective nature, to the end that the high part such developed feeling may play in raising the stature of mankind may be revealed to him. 254

MENC believed that the teacher was responsible for fulfilling a large part of the statements. The student would be influenced by the teacher’s acumen and energy in teaching. “More and more the teacher must present musical material, which by its depth, intensity, and elevation, and its revelation of a buoyant spirit, shall produce significant, affective reactions in our young people.255 It was increasingly apparent to

MENC that educators needed to adopt a philosophy that reconciled the elements of music with general education. “Although current general educational concepts are often strongly materialist, they are given authority in moral and aesthetic fields in which they are inapplicable…those who would promote the arts, including music, should become

254 Ibid, p. 15 255 Ibid, p. 15 87

acquainted with and should advocate a philosophy which affirms the moral and aesthetic elements are equally with physical elements part of the whole reality.”256

National Collaboration

Shortly after the March, 1950 MENC biennial meeting, members of MENC engaged in the “Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth,” which was held in Washington D.C., December 3-7, 1950. President Truman invited professionals from the fields of religion, education, social service, recreation, law, medicine and laymen and children from every state in the United States and foreign countries. Nearly two thousand people were involved in this five-day conference. In an address before the Midcentury Whitehouse Conference, President Truman highlighted the uncertainty of the future, the need to strengthen our defense, and the dangers that communism and communist countries posed to democratic ideals of freedom. President

Truman reminded participants that:

“we must remember, in all that we do at this conference and afterward, that we cannot insulate our children from the uncertainties of the world in which we live or from the impact of the problems which confront us all. What we can do-a what we must do- is to equip them to meet these problems, to do their part in the total effort, and to build up those inner resource of character which are the main strength of the American people.”257

256 Ibid, p. 15. 257 Harry S. Truman. “299- Address before the midcentury Whitehouse conference on children and youth.” Dec. 5, 1950. https://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=989&st=white+house+conference&st1=. Accessed Aug. 1, 2017. 88

The conference aimed to answer “How the necessary mental, emotional, and spiritual qualities may be developed in children, and how the physical, economic, and social conditions favorable to such development may be assured.”258 Many developments came from the conference: a greater focus on child development, greater emphasis and methods for organizations meant to educate parents for participation in the planning for their child, a stronger emphasis on educational, health, recreation, religious, and welfare agencies, participation of the community in schooling, and increasing a better understanding of human behavior.259 Additionally, the conference recommended that children be provided with broad, challenging experiences that emphasized exploration, social interactions, and active participation.

The conference generated a “Pledge to Children,” that served as a guiding philosophy in developing programs for America’s youth. The pledge affirmed the need to develop programs that centered on the well-being and emotional growth of children.

The pledge consisted of fourteen statements that represented the renewed focus on developing America’s youth:

1. Develop self-worth 2. Develop individualism as well as an understanding of others 3. Develop creativity through imagination 4. Develop pride in achievement 5. Develop learning opportunities 6. Develop integrity and moral courage

258 Edith V. Walker and Mary Adams. “The Midcentury White House Conference on Youth and Children.” Pi Lambda Theta Journal. Vol. 29 No. 3, 1951, p.166. 259 MENC. “Pledge and Obligation.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 37 No. 5, 1951, pp. 15-16. 89

7. Develop a desire to seek the truth 8. Develop appreciation of the arts 9. Develop diversity and acceptance 10. Develop standard of living 11. Develop educational opportunities 12. Develop health and wellness 13. Develop research 14. Develop continued relationship through adulthood

The Role of Art in Education

The role of the arts was also explored during the Whitehouse Conference and it was of interest to MENC and music educators across the nation. One of the statements in the “Pledge to Children” was an effort to “open the way for you to enjoy the arts and to use them for deepening your understanding of life.”260 To help understand the role of the arts, members of MENC were invited to examine how music and the arts may impact “The significance of Aesthetic Experience and Artistic Expression for Healthy

Personality Development.”261 The work group (Work Group No. 21) assigned to the completion of this task developed a statement on the role of the arts in developing healthy and artistic youth:

The role of the Arts:

1. The participation in the arts by children and youth, through both creation and appreciation, is an essential force in developing those mental, emotional, and spiritual

260 Ibid, p. 16. 261 Ibid, p. 15. 90

qualities basic to individual happiness, healthy personality, and responsible citizenship. 2. The individual gains personal strength, integrity and freedom by discovering himself through art experiences; and learning how to express his own deep and unique needs and aspirations, he learns also how to communicate with his fellows. Thus individual growth leads to good human relationships and democratic values. 3. The arts contain inherent disciplines, which contribute both to the self-reliance or the individual and to his social understanding and competence. 4. Furthermore, the arts are avenues by which the highest meaning of a whole society or culture can be felt, understood, and transmitted from one generation to the children and youth of the next. 5. The arts supply the chief means by which the individual can identify and publish himself in the world. 6. Therefore, because the arts are a social heritage and because they are inherent as well in the internal life of the growing child and youth, they should be encouraged in home and school, and in every other part of organized life. 7. Teachers, parents, community leaders, and all others whose acts and decisions influence the growth of our children and youth, should learn how better to use their chances to enhance individual freedom and social understanding through giving wider opportunity for healthy personality development through the arts. 91

These statements developed by professionals from many facets of youth development represented an increasing recognition of the value of art and music education. Additionally, conference attendees gave serious attention to the role of schools in ensuring a well-educated and rounded student for participation in democratic life and the role that music and art contributed to this process.

MENC Standards Revisions

On the heels of the White House Conference, MENC revised and published

Outline of a Program for Music Education in 1951. The initial document was prepared by the Music Education Research Council and adopted by MENC at the biennial meeting of

1940. The MENC executive committee requested that the program be revised and updated to reflect an outline for study “…with due consideration for the needs and capacities of children in small or large school systems.”262 Several committees were developed to assist in this process. The committee for Music Education Curriculum in

American Schools was formed and tasked with a number of objectives for developing music education curriculum. “So it was that the Music in American Education project came into being…these people, working on state, division and national committees, studied almost every facet of this complex profession, comparing ideas from different parts of the country, evaluating what was found and frequently recommending

262 William R. Sur. “Outline of a Program for Music Education.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 38 No. 1, 1951, p. 53. 92

changes.”263The objective behind this project was to include a large number of educators, and to help focus old and new ideas for music education. The project was broken into smaller sub and special interest committees: Committees for Levels of

School Organization included: Music for Childhood, Music for Secondary Schools, and

Music in Higher Education. Special area committees included: Music for the General

School Student, Instrumental Music in Schools, Vocal music in schools and Music

Literature, Composition and Theory. Also there were three curricular resource committees that worked with MENC to study and develop resources to assist in classroom teaching. These curricular committees included the Audio-Visual Aids in

Music Education, Contemporary Music for American Schools, and Opera in American

Schools.

The committees at the school organization level were tasked with evaluating music instruction and curriculum that would coordinate “…all activities and findings of all MENC groups concerned with objectives, beliefs, ideas and information on the place of music in the life…and the means of providing him with an enjoyable, desirable, balanced school music experience.264 The committees for special areas in music education were responsible for developing ideas and objectives that would ensure all students received a comprehensive education based on their preferences and interests and that would fit with MENC’s ideals and objectives for quality education. The

263 Marguerite V. Hood. “Music Educators Source Book No. 2.” MENC Chicago Illinois, 1955. p.viii 264 Marguerite V. Hood. “Music in American Education.” Music Educators Journal Vol. 38 No. 2, 1951, p. 34. 93

curricular resource committees were formed to make sure MENC and music educators were informed about resources and equipment available for school music teaching at all levels.

In the Music Education Source Book Number Two, educators agreed that music presented five guiding principles making it an essential part of educating students for citizenship. It was agreed that these five areas aligned with much of the work being carried out in other areas of youth development. If music was to strengthen its place in public schools, it should highlight these principles that had a functional value to the individual to participate more fully in society. “At the risk of under-emphasizing many of the other important functions of music in the curriculum at all levels of education today,

I believe I would put education for citizenship as its most important function.”265 These five principles are: 1. Music offers an opportunity for self-expression through group activity, 2. Music offers an opportunity to develop moral and spiritual values, 3. Music provides a medium for direct contributions to the community, 4. Music offers a medium for understanding other people, culture and their problems and lastly, 5. Through music the student is led to a realization of the arts and their importance throughout history.266

The work of these committees, along with the previous work by Widening

Horizons, Music Advancement Program and the Whitehouse Conference on youth helped MENC further developed and refined the Outline of a Program for Music

265 Benjamin C. Willis. “Chapter 1 Music in General Education.” Music Education Source Book Number Two. MENC Chicago, Illinois, 1955, p. 190 266 Ibid. 94

Education. This outline was designed as a suggested guide for the minimum instruction needed to develop an educationally solid music education approach for all school age children. In its outline, MENC developed instructional time allotments. Students from pre-school through third grade were expected to receive a minimum of twenty minutes of daily music instruction. Instruction in these primary grades was to be centered on singing, rhythm, listening, playing, and creating. Grades four through six were to receive instruction centered on the same five principles with increasing difficulty at each grade level. The primary difference was that as students increased in grade, the minimum time allotments increased. Students in the middle grades were expected to receive twenty- five to thirty minutes of daily music instruction. Secondary grades were not given time recommendations as scheduling varied greatly from school to school. However, students in secondary grades were supposed to have the opportunity to experience music through the following offerings: general music course, vocal music, instrumental music, special electives in music, and out of school opportunities.267 Additionally, MENC recommended that all students in elementary and through secondary education be given the opportunity to experience music through assembly programs, student performances, educational concerts, music clubs (such as folk music, recorder, etc.,) and community music programs.268

267 Ibid. 268 Ibid. 95

Challenging American Education

While MENC was working to revise and develop curriculum standards, the education landscape was under critical review. Dr. Hollis Caswell, Dean of Teachers

College, Columbia, at the Charles P. Steinmetz memorial lecture in 1952, explained the growing criticism of American Public Education. “Considering the nation at large, public education is currently encountering criticism of unusual intensity and scope.”269 Public schools have never been immune from criticism, however, the attacks of the mid- century charged America’s public schools with undermining American ideals and values.270 Hollis argued that public criticism was demanding a reappraisal of the entire progressive philosophy of education.

Many politicians, reformers, and pundits feared that the progressive philosophy of education was undermining American youth. Citizen groups were founded with the intention of monitoring public schools; The Committee for Constitutional Government

(CCG), National Economic Council (NEC), and The American Legion, Sons of the American

Revolution and Minute Women USA used their positions to lobby against public education.

One group especially critical and active against public education, chaired by

Allen Zoll, was the National Council for American Education (NCAE). NCAE and Zoll were responsible for publishing pamphlets that undermined the progressive philosophy.

269 Larry Cuban and Hollis. L Caswell. “The Great Reappraisal of Public Education,”: The 1952 Charles P. Steinmetz Memorial Lecture. American Journal of Education. Vol. 110 No. 1, 2003, p. 10. 270Joel H. Spring. Conflicts of Interest: The Politics of American Education 3rd ed. (New York: Longman, 1998) 96

Pamphlets entitled, “How Red are the Schools,” and “Progressive Education Increases

Juvenile Delinquency”, are examples of the propaganda used to change public opinion.271 Zoll exploited local discontentment and rallied community members to his conservative platform. “Evidence of Zoll’s powerful influence turned up in communities in Michigan, California, Texas, Florida, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee,

Illinois, and countless other troubled towns, cities, and states.”272 The red scare and the many community groups’ opposition to progressive education was evidently central in the resignation of Williard Goslin. Goslin, who was the Pasadena superintendent of public schools, was the target of fierce criticism and skepticism. The organizers believed

Goslin’s progressive practices in curriculum, teaching methods, and school organization weakened academic standards and was influenced by Communist ideas.273 “Activists pressed the school board to do something about this progressive educator who they thought was not only ruining the schools academically, but [also]slyly slipping

Communist ideas into the heads of children, teachers, and the larger community.”274

Shortly after accepting the position of Superintendent, Goslin resigned, warning; “I know of no better way to wreck everything that we think is good in America than to destroy ourselves, one by one, institution by institution, community by community, throughout the land.”275

271 Larry Cuban and Hollis. L Caswell. “The Great Reappraisal of Public Education,”: The 1952 Charles P. Steinmetz Memorial Lecture. American Journal of Education. Vol. 110 No. 1, 2003. 272 Stuart J. Foster. “Red Alert!: The National Education Association Confronts the “Red Scare” in American Public Schools, 1947-1955.” Education and Culture Vol. 14 No. 2, 1997, p. 2. 273 Larry Cuban and Hollis. L Caswell. “The Great Reappraisal of Public Education,”: The 1952 Charles P. Steinmetz Memorial Lecture. American Journal of Education. Vol. 110 No. 1, 2003. 274 Ibid, p. 6. 275 David Hubbard. This Happened in Pasadena. New York: Macmillan Company, 1951. 97

The damage to public education wasn’t isolated to Pasadena schools. “Little doubt remains that, directly or indirectly, right-wing groups had a profound impact on all aspects of American education.”276 The government furthered public mistrust in education through numerous investigative entities. The House Un-American Activities

Committee (HUAC) was explicit in their intentions to investigate public educators.

Chairman Robert L. Kunzig stated: “I feel that we should look into the field of education.

That has been left largely untouched up till now but I believe that it is a very fertile field for investigation.”277 In 1952, Senator James McCarthy also made clear his intentions to investigate the education system and expose Communists and Communist ideologies in the public schools. Additionally, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS), chaired by Senator Pat McCarran, engineered lengthy investigations “…into the subversive influences into the nation’s educational system.”278

As a result of these organized investigations, hundreds of teachers lost their jobs across the nation.279 This climate was also true on many of the nation’s most prestigious

Universities. The HUAC and SISS subcommittees began investigating faculty across the nation at universities such as Harvard, MIT, New York University, and Columbia

276 Stuart J. Foster and O.L. Davis Jr. “Conservative Battles for Public Education within America’s Culture Wars: poignant lessons for today from the red scare of the 1950s.” London Review of Education. Vol. 2 No. 2, 2004, pp. 123-136. 277 Stuart J. Foster. “Red Alert!: The National Education Association Confronts the “Red Scare” in American Public Schools, 1947-1955.” Education and Culture Vol. 14 No. 2, 1997, p. 3. 278 Ibid, p. 3. 279 Stuart J. Foster and O.L. Davis Jr. “Conservative Battles for Public Education within America’s Culture Wars: poignant lessons for today from the red scare of the 1950s.” London Review of Education. Vol. 2 No. 2, 2004, pp. 123-136. 98

University.280 “A typical outcome occurred at Ohio State University, for the school’s

President summarily fired faculty members who invoked the Fifth Amendment in

1955.”281

The investigations at the collegiate level undoubtedly had a contagious effect on public educators. “School teachers who refused to cooperate with the SISS or who invoked the Fifth Amendment before the HUAC would be immediately suspended and eventually discharged by their respective school boards.”282 Public educators existed in a state of perpetual anxiety and fear. The red scare had a tremendous impact on

American education and its’ teachers. “For many, the trauma and uncertainty of the times strained personal and family relations, led to marriage break-ups and, in some cases, prompted suicides.”283 The University of Chicago Chancellor, Robert Maynard

Hutchins aptly noted, “The question is not how many teachers have been fired, but how many think they might be…You don’t have to fire many teachers to intimidate them all.

The entire teaching profession of the US is intimidated.”284 In a survey conducted by the

National Education Association’s (NEA) Defense Commission, fifty-eight percent of

Houston teachers believed political groups had influenced and impacted curriculum

280 Milton Cantor. The First Amendment Under Fire: America’s Radicals, Congress, and the Courts. Rutledge, New York, New York. 2017. 281 Ibid, p. 233 282 Ibid, p. 243 283 Stuart J. Foster and O.L. Davis Jr. “Conservative Battles for Public Education within America’s Culture Wars: poignant lessons for today from the red scare of the 1950s.” London Review of Education. Vol. 2 No. 2, 2004, pp. 123-136. 284 Ibid, pp. 123-136. 99

towards one political leaning. Additionally, over forty percent of these teachers expected to lose their jobs due to their own personal beliefs and political views.285

A situation in Houston mirrored the public mistrust in Pasadena. Both communities shared in their mistrust of public education and become ensnared in conflicts of ideology. “In Houston, …powerful right-wing business interests and conservative newspapers manipulated and fueled the crisis mentality of the “red scare.””286 Political reactions to racial integration and re-zoning of school districts further eroded public support in Houston and Pasadena.

Education responds to American Concern

In an effort to stem the mounting criticism and mistrust of education, the NEA created the Defense Commission in 1941. The Defense Commission was the only education agency explicitly tasked with protecting and advocating for public school teachers. NEA President Donald DuShane encouraged delegates to “protect our schools from misunderstanding and unjust attack.”287 However, the period from 1941-1947 was relatively calm, with public education enduring only slight criticism. “By the early 1950s, however, the steady trickle of “red scare” criticism which surfaced in the early 1940s

285 NEA. “The National Commission for the Defense of Democracy Through Education. Report of an Investigation Houston, Texas: The Study of Factors Related to Educational Unrest in a Large School System.” NEA. Washington D.C., 1954 286 Stuart J. Foster. “Red Alert!: The National Education Association Confronts the “Red Scare” in American Public Schools, 1947-1955.” Education and Culture Vol. 14 No. 2, 1997, p. 7.

287 Donald DuShane. “A Challenge to the Teaching Profession.” National Education Association of the United States Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Annual Meeting. Washington D.C., 1941. 100

soon exploded into a raging torrent of political invective.”288 In 1949 the NEA Defense

Commission appointed Robert Skaife to serve as field secretary. In 1951, Skaife outlined seven steps that should be taken to strengthen the Defense Commission’s position:289

1. Further study teacher-administrator-board relationships. 2. Support professionalization of superintendence. 3. Programs to strengthen local teacher’s associations. 4. Create a model of fair employment practices. 5. Support programs to train new school board members. 6. Support education conferences for the public. 7. Take deliberate steps to challenge untrue statements and false propaganda of public education. To support and defend public educators, the Defense Commission created and disseminated the Defense Bulletin. The Bulletin had three important features. Firstly, it served as a national source of information for educators around the country. It also provided educators with information on how they may confront and defend against unwarranted criticism of public schools. Lastly, the Bulletin took pride in publishing accounts of individuals, organizations, and businesses that supported public education.

At a time when teacher morale was exceptionally low, these accounts “…boosted the

288 Stuart J. Foster. “Red Alert!: The National Education Association Confronts the “Red Scare” in American Public Schools, 1947-1955.” Education and Culture Vol. 14 No. 2, 1997, p. 7. 289 Robert Skaife. An evaluation of the program of the national commission for the defense of democracy through education. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; Retrieved from http://proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/docview/1680273065?accountid=9783 101

morale of teachers and reminded educators of the enormously important work they were undertaking.”290Additionally the NEA Defense Commission worked vigorously with community organizations, such as, “The National Citizens Commission for the Public

Schools (NCCS) and the National Congress of Parents and Teachers (NCPT).”291

Collaborating with these organizations and increasing their own public relations efforts allowed the NEA to garner public support in a period when public schools needed it most. Unfortunately, the efforts of the NEA Defense Commission could not combat every undue attack, but the work represented the first time an organization existed purely for the defense of teachers and their work.

Effects of Sputnik

MENC recognized the changing trends in education and proactively organized a meeting for the Board of Directors On October 11th-14th, 1957. This meeting was created with the explicit purpose of evaluating the present status and trends in music education, implications for the profession, and implementing an extended program for the profession.292 This meeting was historically significant for a number of reasons: one, the meeting had unintentionally convened on the eve of the Sputnik satellite launch.

“Readers…recognized the rare appropriateness, timeliness, and educational significance of the MENC leadership meeting which occurred on the very eve of the first Sputnik

290 Stuart J. Foster. “Red Alert! !: The National Education Association Confronts the “Red Scare” in American Public Schools, 1947-1955.” Education and Culture Vol. 14 No. 2, 1997, p. 6. 291 Ibid, p. 6. 292 Vanett Lawler. “Preparing for the Years Ahead: A Report to the Membership of the Music Educators National Conference, Part One” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 44 No. 3, 1958, pp. 20-23. 102

episode, October 11-14, 1957.”293 Secondly, this meeting represented the first time it was possible for the Board of Directors to “administer the business and educational affairs of the National Conference.”294 Lastly, attendance at this pivotal meeting was one hundred percent. “The only business at hand over the three day period of the meeting was the opportunity to discuss and to raise questions concerning the future of the profession and to interpret the role of the professional organization in terms of the discussions.”295 Members of the Board questioned the current MENC slogan ‘music for every child, every child for music,’ and offered that in the near future music educators would need to be armed with justifiable answers about its relevance in the public curriculum. MENC feared that music education lacked direction and would lose favor with American youth and the public.

The launch of Sputnik, coupled with red scare and changing societal values, was an alert to educators around the nation. “We have been abruptly awakened to many things very important to us, with the result that, more than ever before, attention of the alerted public mind has been focused on education and our schools.”296 Many music educators feared that the launch of Sputnik would impact the role of music in public schools. “We will not be panicked into extra special emphasis on science and math to the exclusion of other subjects.”297

293 Vanett Lawler. “Preparing for the Years Ahead: A Report to the Membership of the Music Educators National Conference, Part Two.” Music Educators Journal. Vol 44 No. 4, 1958, p. 48. 294 Vanett Lawler. “Preparing for the Years Ahead: A Report to the Membership of the Music Educators National Conference, Part One” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 44 No. 3, 1958, p.20. 295 Ibid, p.20. 296 C.V.B. “Before Sputnik-and After.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 44 No. 3 1958, p. 19. 297 Ibid, p. 19. 103

The nation was shaken by the Soviets launch and many education reformers thought American students were not learning the scientific and technological skills needed to remain at the top. Within one year after the Sputnik’s launch, the federal government had created many initiatives to strengthen America’s science and mathematics education. In 1958 several government programs were enacted to rectify

America’s position in the technology race, with many of these initiatives taking direct aim at education. On September 2, 1958, less than one year after Sputnik took orbit,

President Eisenhower signed into law the National Defense Education Act (NDEA). This legislation was to “…enlist the aid of the Federal government in improving scientific education in schools and colleges…”298 NDEA was written with specific provisions, including scholarships and loans, for higher education, for students that showed curricular interest in math, science and engineering. Additionally, the Federal government set aside grant money for public schools to improve instruction in math, science and foreign language.299 NDEA greatly impacted the American educational landscape. “The National Defense Education Act of 1958 became one of the most successful legislative initiatives in higher education. It established the legitimacy of federal funding…made substantial funds available for low-cost student loans…and the

298 Ibid, p. 19. 299 Thomas C. Hunt. “National Defense Education Act.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/National-Defense-Education-Act. Accessed July 8, 2017. 104

results were conspicuous: in 1960 there were 3.6 million students in college, and by

1970 there were 7.5 million.”300

The National Science Foundation (NSF), encouraged and supported by Congress, provided grant money to several organizations seeking to further science education in

American public schools. In the 1958 yearbook entitled, “The Year of the Earth

Satellites: The Status of Science and Education in the United States”, the NSF reiterated many of the criticisms of public education. “Quality in the Nations’ schools was observed to be what the community and its citizens made it…For the National Science

Foundation, policy lines were clear-unequivocally, the Foundation programs were concerned with improving science education.”301 The appropriation of funds for NSF educational programs increased over 300 percent to approximately $60 million, allowing for the expansion of programs and curriculum. NSF devoted grant monies to programs that focused on three areas: student participation projects, teacher training projects and course improvement studies.302 Groups, like the Biology Sciences

Curriculum Studies (BSCS), Physical Science Studies Committee (PSSC), and Mathematics

Study Group (MSG) were given funds to strengthen and increase science curriculum.

“The Foundation has provided support for major studies of science curricula in the secondary schools in which the knowledge, judgment, and experience of distinguished

300 United States Senate. “Sputnik Spurs Passage of the National Defense Education Act.”https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Sputnik_Spurs_Passage_of_National_ Defense_Education_Act.htm. Accessed July 8, 2017. 301 National Science Foundation. “The Year of the Earth Satellites: The Status of Science and Education in the United States.” NSF Washington D.C., 1958, pp. 5-6 302 Ibid. 105

scientists and skillful teachers have been welded together to produce new and imaginative approaches to science instruction.”303 New curriculums in physics, biology, and other scientific courses were studied and created. Funding from NSF ensured public schools had the resources to offer many of these science initiatives. “The quality of scientific training given our young people has so vital a role for the safety and economic welfare of this country that it can no longer be neglected if America is to maintain its position of leadership in science and technology.”304 Additionally, NSF provided financial assistance for the creation of mathematic curricula. “Eminent mathematicians are working cooperatively with experienced high school teachers to develop an approach to mathematics that will both reflect modern concepts in this important field and create interest and understanding in the minds of the students.”305 The purpose of the MSG was to ensure that math curricula were reorganized in a meaningful way in the upper and elementary level, to encourage greater interest and subject matter knowledge.

Music’s Role in a technology era

Music educators and the MENC were in a precarious situation. Having done much work to secure music’s vital role in public schools, the current reforms were pushing for a heavy emphasis on science, math, and technology. President Eisenhower warned in “Science in National Security” and “Our Future Security” that many of the

303 Ibid, p. 5. 304 Ibid, p. 5. 305 Ibid, p. 6. 106

current problems stemmed from the “…failure to give high enough priority to scientific education…”306 MENC was left to wonder what the new reality would become. At the

March 1958 biennial meeting in Los Angeles, the Board of Directors recommended the creation of a continuing committee: The Study Committee on Purposes and Goals of

Music Education.307 Committed to preserving music’s place in public schools, the committee attempted to determine the “functions and purposes of music as an indispensable segment in programs of general education.”308 The committee created a list of seven areas that would need to be evaluated and addressed in the coming years:

1. Responsibility to Students 2. Responsibility to Music Educators 3. Responsibility to Parents and Citizens 4. Responsibility to School Administrators 5. Responsibility to Community 6. Responsibility to All Teachers 7. Responsibility to Colleagues in Related Fields With an eye towards further reforms and self-evaluation, MENC recognized that music education was “…already adjusting our thinking to the flow of experience and information that is entering the student’s mind in classrooms without walls.”309 Coupled with passion, committees, and other education organization, MENC prepared for the coming changes, “and thus, MENC is joined with all forces of education for the years

306 Ibid, p. 6. 307 Lilla Belle Pitts. “Purposes and Goals of Music Education in 1958. Report for the MENC Study Committee on Purposes and goals of Music Education.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 44 No. 5, 1958. 308 Ibid, p. 20. 309 Ibid, p. 21. 107

ahead-which for education begin now. This is the spurring challenge of the 1958 theme recently announced on behalf of the Nation Education Association by President Lyman

B. Ginger: Our Future goes to school today.310

As funding and research increased in science and math, music educators worried about being left behind. However, in 1961, before the United States House Committee on Education and Labor, legislation was presented to establish the Federal Advisory

Council on the Arts and earmark federal grants for art projects. Shortly thereafter, on

June 12, 1963, President John F. Kennedy officially established the “President’s Advisory

Council on the Arts,” which was composed of heads of federal departments, agencies, and thirty private citizens (appointed by the president).311 President Kennedy believed that it was necessary to devote attention to the role of arts in public life. “We have agencies of the Government which are concerned with the welfare and advancement of science and technology, of education, recreation and health. We should now begin to give similar attention to the arts.”312 Unfortunately, President Kennedy was never able to appoint the private citizens or see the fulfillment of this Council prior to his assassination.

310 C.V.B. “Before Sputnik-and After.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 44 No. 3 1958, p. 19. 311 John F. Kennedy. “240-Statement by the President Establishing the Advisory Council on the Arts.” Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9275. 312 Ibid. 108

Yale Seminar

In 1963, through the Office of Education’s recently established Arts and

Humanities Branch, the Yale Seminar occurred. In 1962, “the Office of Education was reorganized in anticipation of a sizable expansion of educational programs, and as part of the reorganization a new bureau was formed- the Bureau of Educational Research and Development.”313 Funding for this project was provided by the Cooperative

Research Program, which was initiated on the recommendation of a panel of “…leading educators, scientists, administrators, generalists from across the country…who were concerned with the problems of education.”314 These recommendations were made to three federal officials; the Commissioner of Education, the Director of the President’s

Office of Science and Technology and the Director of the National Science

Foundation.315 It was anticipated that the Yale Seminar would create an organized curriculum effort and public school initiative, similar to what occurred in science and mathematics. The participants agreed the time had come for music educators, theorists, performers and composers to develop an actionable curriculum. “The carefully deliberated curriculum revision that has been successfully begun in the physical and biological sciences and in mathematics must be extended to the arts. The object…is to bring the subject matter and method of teaching in line with contemporary knowledge and culture.”316

313 “Report of the Sixth Annual Meeting.” College Music Symposium Vol. 4, 1964, p. 120. 314 Ibid, p. 13 315 Ibid. 316 Claude Palisca. Music in Our Schools: A Search for Improvement. Report of the Yale Seminar on Music Education. US Office of Education Washington D.C., 1964, p. 2. 109

The Seminar was deemed necessary due to the “…standards of contemporary professional activity reflected in today’s schools.”317 Many musicians and educators felt isolated and ignored. “It is the lack of communication between the realms of music education and professional activity implied in this realization that was the main justification for the Seminar. The field of music education has become a far-flung realm with its own traditions, associations, organs, experts. It has become increasingly difficult for forces outside this complex to influence music teaching.”318 It was generally agreed by members of the Seminar that music education curriculum was failing students.

“…The participants in the Seminar…were well aware that a pronounced cultural lag had spread between the more advanced sectors of musical practice and the content and character of the curriculum.”319

The Seminar was comprised of thirty-one participants. They included professional “…composers, performers, conductors, musicologists, critics, school music teachers, educational administrators, and music educators.”320 Representatives from music education included: Allen P. Britton (MENC President 1960-1962), William B.

McBride (former OMEA President,) and Jerrold Ross. Other members of the teaching field included: Herbert Alper, John Carton, Thomas Hillbish, Evelyn Hunt and Ronald B.

Thomas.321 Over twenty-five percent, of the thirty-one-member panel, represented the field of music education.

317 Ibid, p. 1. 318 Ibid, p. 1. 319 Ibid, p. 5. 320 “Report of the Sixth Annual Meeting.” College Music Symposium Vol. 4, 1964, p. 115. 321 Ibid. 110

The primary objective of the Seminar was to define means of improving music education. The Seminar highlighted three pivotal problems:

1. The development of musicality through playing, singing, and creating music, and through listening and ear-training 2. The criteria for selecting repertoires for performing and listening 3. The development of understanding of musical literature322

As a result, participants of the Seminar agreed that developing musicality should be the primary emphasis of music education in elementary, middle, and secondary education. Furthermore, creative activities should be emphasized as a means to accomplishing this primary objective. “Creative activities were particularly encouraged as a sure means of developing musicality, teaching reading, and stimulating interest in learning.”323 Additionally, the Yale Seminar highlighted nine other areas where music could improve and gave recommendations for them: the areas of repertory, music as literature, performing activities, courses for advanced study, musicians in residence, community resources, national resources, audio-visual aids, and teacher training and retraining. 324 It was the goal for the Seminar to result in new proposals, ideas, and curriculum for leading music education into the future. In fact, as a result, the Seminar produced an “…entirely new set of curriculum materials for teaching music from

322 Ibid. 323 Ibid, p. 116. 324 Claude Palisca. Music in Our Schools: A Search for Improvement. Report of the Yale Seminar on Music Education. US Office of Education Washington D.C., 1964. 111

kindergarten through the 12th grade. This proposal has been recommended to the review panel and advisory council of the Cooperative Research Program.”325

Music Educators respond

The Yale Seminar may have been a success in bringing attention to music in the public school curriculum; however, music educators did not view it positively. “Since the final published report of the Yale Seminar of 1963 had been maliciously edited so as to put music education in the worst light possible, Louis(Who?) decided to stage a conference that would highlight the successes and benefits of school music rather than its shortcomings.”326

Music educators were concerned with the findings of the Yale Seminar; believing that more music educators should have been invited and consulted throughout the

Seminar. “At the time, some individuals in the music-education establishment resented their lack of input and called the conclusions reached by the Seminar “unrealistic and naïve.”327 Following the Seminar, The 1964 Julliard Music Repertory project, which developed a new set of curricular standards for elementary learners, was submitted and accepted by the US Office of Education. Music educators voiced concern over this new curriculum as well for many reasons; Julliard had no education program and not enough

325“Report of the Sixth Annual Meeting.” College Music Symposium Vol. 4, 1964, p. 121. 326 Allen P. Britton. “MENC: Remembrances and Perspectives.” The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning. Vol. 5 No. 2, 1994, p. 13. 327 Robert J. Werner. “A Review of the 1963 Yale Seminar.” College Music Symposium. Vol 49/50, 2009/2010, p. 103. 112

music educators were consulted in its development. As a response to the Yale Seminar, in 1967 MENC announced the Tanglewood Symposium project.

Tanglewood Symposium

The Tanglewood Symposium was a ten-day meeting held in Tanglewood, MA, the summer home of the Boston Symphony. The purpose of the Symposium was to develop long-range objectives for everyone involved in music education. During the initial planning sessions educators identified areas of concerns: addressing mainstream societal concerns, nation-wide interest in arts, social and economic developments, and financial support for music and other arts.328

The main objective of the Tanglewood Symposium was “…defined as follows: (1) to clarify and define more clearly the purposes, significance, and unique functions of music in our society and in education; (2) to explore mutual concerns and possible means of cooperation with societal institutions concerned with the development of music in a changing society; (3) to prepare statements and publications which will clarify objectives and assist administrators, supervisors, and teachers in interpreting and supporting an effective program in music education.”329

As a result of the Symposium, music educators identified critical issues for the profession: music and the inner city, music for all high school students, music for the

328 Robert A. Choate. “Music in American Society: the MENC Tanglewood Symposium Project.” Music Educators Journal Vol. 53 No. 7, 1967 329 Ibid, p. 39. 113

child 3-8, music for teenagers, implications for music in higher education, implications for the music curriculum, and implications for the educational process and for evaluation.330 The music curriculum committee; led by Karl D. Ernst, Ernestine Ferrel,

O.M. Hartsell, Harry Lantz, and A. Verne Wilson evaluated how to strengthen curriculum in public education. As a result of the ten-day Symposium, MENC issued the Tanglewood

Declaration, which emphasized the need of music. “We believe that education must have as major goals the art of living, the building of personal identity, and nurturing creativity. Since the study of music can contribute much to these ends, we now call for music to be placed in the core of the school curriculum.”331

GO Project Begins

To advance the findings of the Tanglewood Symposium, in 1969 MENC initiated the Goals and Objectives Project (GO). The Go Project, was a grass roots effort by MENC to include educators from across the nation in formulating long-term goals and objectives for the Conference.332 The Go Project created thirty-five objectives, however,

MENC prioritized eight goals:

1. Lead in efforts to develop programs of music instruction 2. Lead in the development of programs of study 3. Assist teachers in the identification of musical behaviors 4. Advance the teaching of music of all periods, styles,

330 MENC. Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium. MENC, Washington, D.C., 1968. 331 Michael Mark “Tanglewood Declaration”. Music Education: Source Reading from Ancient Greece to Today. New York, Routledge, 2002, p. 331. 332 MENC. ”Go Project: MENC forms Two Commissions.” Music Educators Journal Vol 57 No. 8, 1971, pp. 47-48 114

forms, and cultures 5. Develop standards for music instruction 6. Expand its programs to secure greater involvement and commitment of students 7. Assume leadership in the new developments of curriculum 8. Lead in efforts to ensure sufficient time and funds for excellent music programs333 The GO Project had two significant impacts: the vast involvement of MENC members identifying major concerns for the music education profession and developing long term concerns for the future of music education. MENC formed two commissions to implement directives for achieving the objectives created by the GO Project: the

National Commission on Organizational Development and the MENC National

Commission on Instruction (NCOI). The NCOI was chaired by Paul R. Lehman and additional committee members included: Barbara Andress, Russel P. Getz, Richard M.

Graham, John C. McManus, Eunice Boardman Meske, and Robert G. Petzold. Many of the objectives created by the GO Project were concerned with music instruction.

“Twenty of these relate directly to curriculum and instruction, and nine others concern processes by which accomplishments in the improvement of instruction can be disseminated and implemented. In addition, six of the eight objectives marked top priority by the National Executive Board deal with curriculum and instruction.”334 While

333 Frances M. Andrews. “Goals and Objectives for Music Education: A Message from the President of MENC.” MEJ Go Vol 57 No. 4, 1970, p. 23. 334 MENC. ”Go Project: MENC forms Two Commissions.” Music Educators Journal Vol 57 No. 8, 1971, p. 23. 115

the National Commission on Instruction worked on a wide variety of initiatives, one of the most important outcomes was the publication in 1974 of The School Music Program:

Description and Standard s(hereafter referred to as The School Music Program). The

School Music Program represented many years of collaboration, research, and advocacy.

The School Music Program

The School Music Program outlined a model curriculum and made recommendations for appropriate musical experiences for children at all levels of instruction, including music as an integral part of the school curriculum. The following quote by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) illustrates the commitment made by MENC and ASSA: “We believe in a well-balanced school curriculum in which music, drama, painting, poetry, sculpture, architecture and the like are included side by side with other important subjects such as mathematics, history and science.”335 The NCOI, an appointed committee of MENC members and leaders, created a list of eleven reasons why music should be included in the public school curriculum:

1. To help each student to develop his aesthetic potential to the utmost 2. To transmit our cultural heritage to succeeding generations 3. To give the student a source of enjoyment he can use throughout his life, and to enhance the quality of life 4. To provide an outlet for creativity and self-expression

335 MENC. The School Music Program: Description and Standards. MENC Washington, D.C., 1974. 116

5. To help the student to understand better the nature of man and his relationship with his environment 6. To provide an opportunity for success for some students who have difficulty with other aspects of the school curriculum, and to make the school a more pleasant place 7. To increase the satisfaction, the student is able to derive from music, and to enable him to deal with sophisticated and complex music 8. To help the student become acquainted with other cultures 9. To cultivate one of the major symbolic systems that make man uniquely human 10. To help the student to realize that not every aspect of life is quantifiable and that it is important to be able to cope with the subjective 11. To contribute to a balanced program of career education336

Based upon this rationale, NCOI identified specific outcomes of a quality music program that should be recognized. It was agreed that specific objectives may differ amongst school systems and regions, however they believed certain common aims were evident.

A quality music program should allow musically educated students to:

1. Make music alone and with others 2. Improvise and create music 3. Use the vocabulary and notation of music 4. Respond to music aesthetically, intellectually, and emotionally 5. Acquainted with a wide variety of music, including diverse musical styles and genres 6. Familiar with the role music has played and continues to play in the life of man

336 Ibid. 117

7. Able to make aesthetic judgments based on critical listening and analysis 8. Developed a commitment to music 9. Support and encourage others to support the musical life of the community 10. Able to continue his musical learning independently. 337

In summary, a quality music program was distinguished by a few main features: varied types of musical experiences and instruction offered, daily music experiences, limitation on the size of music classes, instruction by music specialists, and adequate facilities, materials and equipment. A unique aspect of the NCOI document was the inclusion of recommendations and descriptions for staffing and development, scheduling, facilities, materials and equipment and funding. Additionally, each of these recommendations was described at basic program and quality program levels.

Conclusion

The work of MENC from 1950 to 1974 was monumental. It is certain that without the dedication and work of this professional organization music education would have suffered even greater in public education. Through professional efforts, such as:

Widening Horizon, Music Education Advancement Project, Yale Seminar, Tanglewood

Symposium, GO Project, and others, MENC provided direction and guidance as music education navigated a changing educational environment. MENC widened its scope of vision and explored many new fields during this period of music education. The organization increased its membership significantly and became an even larger

337 Ibid. 118

diversified professional organization. MENC incorporated a wide variety of interests in music education including; political advocacy and developing music industry.338 Through collaboration with other professional associations like NEA, ASSA, Coalition for the Arts, leaders voiced their concerns and used other platforms to advance the case for music education. Although MENC recognized that more difficult work was ahead, the advances for the profession during this period were no doubt some of the most important developments for MENC throughout its history as a professional organization.

338 During this period several organizations aligned with MENC in support of music education. Some of these groups include, the College Band Directors Association, the National Association of College Wind and Percussion Instructors, as well as, the American String Teachers Association and American Choral Directors Association. With the help of MENC, these music education associations were able to have a voice and express concerns for the development of music programs and offerings. Additionally, during this period MENC worked closely with organizations outside of the association, such as the National Association of Schools of Music. The relationships forged during this period of time have continued and currently works with over twenty-five organizations for advocacy and policy initiatives. 119

Chapter 5 Standards in 1980s and Forward

1980s Educational Reform: Overview

In the 1970s, the publication of The School Music Program: Description and

Standards (1974) was an important step for music education. Unfortunately, coming out of the 1970s, music education would find itself in a familiar situation, once again advocating for its place in the general curriculum. At the beginning of the 1980s, public education underwent a number of reform movements. Many of the reforms were targeted at students, specifically the quality of their work and the quality of instruction they received. For example, in 1983 the education reform movement gained national attention with the publication of A Nation at Risk, which was completed by the National

Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) at the direction of President Reagan. This report spurred action at all levels of education and government. In his report “…the Best of Educations” William Chance reported that over 275 education task forces had been organized in the early and mid-1980s.339

The visibility of the education reform movement in the 1980s is manifest in the intensity of political activity. Since 1983, states have generated more rules and regulations about all aspects of education than in the previous 20 years. “Nationwide, more than 700 state statutes affecting some aspect of the teaching profession were enacted between 1984 and 1986.”340 Many of these educational initiatives had a direct

339 William Chance. “…The Best of Educations.” MacArthur Foundation. Chicago, Il. 1986. 340 Thomas B. Timar and David L. Kirp. “Education Reform in the 1980s: Lessons from the States.” Phi Delta Kappa International. Vol. 70 No. 7 1989, p. 506. 120

impact on the course of music education, perhaps none more than the publication of A

Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE)

In 1981 President Reagan instructed Secretary of Education, T.H. Bell to create the NCEE with the express purpose of examining the quality of education in the United

States. This committee was tasked with preparing a report within 18 months of its first meeting.341 The Commission was created in response to Bell’s concern of “…widespread public perception that something is seriously remiss in our educational system.”342

Furthermore, Bell believed the Commission was necessary due to his “responsibility to provide leadership, constructive criticism, and effective assistance to schools and universities.”343 The official charter of the Commission was approved by T.H. Bell on

August 5, 1981. The Commission was to consist of at least twelve but no more than nineteen public members. Each of these members was appointed to the Commission by

Secretary Bell. The “…Commission includes persons who are knowledgeable about educational programs at various levels and are familiar with views of the public, of employers, of educators, and of leaders of a range of professions regarding the status of

341 National Commission on Excellence in Education. “A Nation at Risk: Imperative for Educational Reform.” United States Department of Education. Washington, D.C., 1983. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED226006.pdf. Accessed Aug. 5, 2017. 342 Ibid, p. 1. 343 Ibid, p. 1. 121

education today, requirements for the future, and ways the quality of education for all

Americans can be improved.”344

The NCEE Commission consisted of eighteen public members including: David P.

Gardner (Chairman); president of University of Utah, Yvonne W. Larsen (Vice Chairman), immediate past-president of the San Diego City School Board, William O. Baker (retired

Chairman of the Board for Bell Telephone Laboratories), Anne Campbell (former

Commissioner on Education for Nebraska), Emeral A. Crosby (a Principal in Detroit school systems, Charles A. Foster Jr. (immediate past-president for the Foundation for

Teaching Economics), Norman C. Francis (president of Xavier University of Louisiana), A.

Barlett Giamatti (president of Yale University), Shirley Gordon (president of Highline

Community College), Robert V. Haderlein (immediate Past-President of the National

School Boards Association), Gerald Holdton (professor of sciences at Harvard

University), Annette Y. Kirk (Kirk Associates), Margaret S. Martson (member of the

Virginia State Board of Education), Albert H. Quie (former Governor of Minnesota),

Francisco D. Sanchez, Jr. (Superintendent of Albuquerque Public Schools), Glenn T.

Seaborg (professor of chemistry at University of California), Jay Sommer (National

Teacher of the Year 181-82, New Rochelle High School), and Richard Wallace (Principal of Lutheran High School East in Cleveland Ohio).

344 Ibid, p. 46. 122

The NCEE was tasked with making recommendations about American public schools to the Secretary of Education. Specific responsibilities of the Commission were the following:

1. To review and synthesize the data and scholarly literature on the quality of learning and teaching in the nation's schools, colleges, and universities, both public and private, with special concern for the educational experience of teen-age youth; 2. To examine and to compare and contrast the curricula, standards, and expectations of the educational systems of several advanced countries with those of the United States; 3. To study a representative sampling of university and college admission standards and lower division course requirements with particular reference to the impact upon the enhancement of quality and the promotion of excellence such standards may have on high school curricula and on expected levels of high school academic achievement; 4. To review and to describe educational programs that are recognized as preparing students who consistently attain higher than average scores in college entrance examinations and who meet with uncommon success the demands placed on them by the nation's colleges and universities; 5. To review the major changes that have occurred in American education as well as events in society during the past quarter century that have significantly affected educational achievement; 6. To hold hearings and to receive testimony and expert advice on efforts that could and should be taken to foster higher levels of quality and academic excellence in the nation's schools, colleges, and universities; 7. To do all other things needed to define the problems of and the barriers to attaining greater levels of excellence in American education; and 8. To report and to make practical recommendations for action to be taken by educators, public officials, governing boards, parents, and others having a vital interest in American education and a capacity to influence it for the better.345

While the Commission was given these eight specific charges, careful attention was given to the following concerns:

1. Assessing the quality of teaching and learning in our Nation’s public and private schools, colleges, and universities

345 Ibid, pp. 45-46. 123

2. Comparing American schools and colleges with those of other advanced nations; 3. Studying the relationship between college admissions requirements and student achievement in high school; 4. Identifying educational programs which result in notable student success in college; 5. Assessing the degree wo which major social and educational changes in the last quarter century have affected student achievement; and 6. Defining problems which must be faced and overcome if we are successfully to pursue the course of excellence in education.346

Members of NCEE were asked to focus much of their attention on teenage youth and American high schools. While evaluating the state of public education, the

Commission relied on five main sources of information: papers from experts in education, public members invited to “eight meetings of the full Commission, six public hearings, two panel discussions, a symposium, and a series of meetings organized by the

Department of Education’s Regional Offices.”347 The Commission carefully analyzed educational problems, letters from public volunteers (including teachers, citizens, and administrators), and evaluated notable programs and approaches in education.348

The Commission came to the conclusion that America’s public schools were failing and, as a result, students were failing. “Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world...the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future

346 Ibid, pp. 8-9 347 Ibid, p. 9. 348 Ibid. 124

as a Nation and a people.” 349

The inflammatory tones of the report fueled education reform. However, it also highlighted the economic and financial concerns of education and the nation.

“Confronted by economic recession at home and declining market share abroad, government and business leaders looked to public schools to assign blame and to seek solutions. In fact, one of the fundamental assumptions of education reform in the mid-

1980s was that the quality of K-12 education would determine the nation’s economic success.”350

The Commission presented numerous risk indicators, including; poor academic achievement compared to other nations, number of illiterate Americans, number of illiterate seventeen year olds, high school standardized test scores, population of gifted students, average Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, college board test scores

(specifically in English and physics), number of students scoring superior on the SAT, increased enrollment in collegiate remedial courses, and business and military expenditures on remedial programs.351

The Commission expressed concern with student performance and expectations, as well as, the length of instructional time students received. The Commission also was concerned about what type of instruction was emphasized in school. “Some worry that schools may emphasize such rudiments as reading and computation at the expense

349 Ibid, p. 12. 350 Rick Ginsberg. “Education Reform Reports of Historical Significance.” Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd ed. New York, New York. Macmillan, 2003. http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1944/Education- Reform.html, Accessed July 12, 2017. 351 National Commission on Excellence in Education. “A Nation at Risk: Imperative for Educational 125

of…skills such as comprehension, analysis, solving problems, and drawing conclusions.”352

The NCEE believed that without robust changes to education, for the first time in

U.S. history, the educational skills of a generation would not surpass those of its predecessors. “For the first time in the history of our country, the educational skills of one generation will not surpass, will not equal, will not even approach, those of their parents.”353

To address these numerous concerns, the NCEE encouraged officials and the public to embrace excellence in education. The definition of excellence that the NCEE created had three components: individual learner, school or college, and society. For the individual learner the Commission defined excellence as “…performing on the boundary of individual ability in ways that test and push back personal limits, in school and the workplace.”354 Excellence concerning schools and colleges was defined as institutions that set high expectations and goals for all learners and created tangible ways for these learners to reach them. Lastly, excellence regarding society was one that “…adopted these policies, for it will then be prepared through the education and skill of its people to respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing world.”355 To increase the educational excellence of public schools, the Commission offered recommendations in four main areas: content, expectations, time, and teaching.

352 Ibid, p. 17. 353 Ibid, p. 18. 354 Ibid, p. 19. 355 Ibid, p. 19. 126

The Commission compared the curricular content of high school courses from

1964-69 with those in use during 1976-81. The NCEE found that secondary school curricula had been weakened and homogenized. Further, there was concern about the number of curricular courses offered at the high school and the number of students that completed each course. “The curricular smorgasbord, combined with extensive student choice, explains a great deal about where we find ourselves today…Calculus is available in schools enrolling about sixty percent of all students, but only 6 percent complete it.”356

The NCEE also expressed concerns about the expectations of public schools and its students. The Commission wanted to define the level of “…knowledge, abilities, and skills school and college graduates should possess.”357 The NCEE believed that the expectations of students could be evaluated in a number of ways: through academic mastery, high school graduation requirements, onerous examinations as a matriculation requirement, college admission requirements, which reinforce high school standards, and more difficult subject matter.358 The NCEE found many deficiencies within these expectations. The Commission noted the lack of homework, especially for high school students, the amount of instructional times students received in math and science classes, graduation requirements, and student choice in scheduling. It was the

Commission’s opinion that “…low expectations for student performance and college

356 Ibid, p. 26. 357 Ibid, p. 26. 358 Ibid. 127

admissions, less time devoted to instruction and homework, and poor-quality teaching and teacher preparation…” were responsible for much of the failure in public education.359

The Commission also evaluated the length of instructional time American schools offered and found that: American students spend much less time on school work than international students, the time used in classroom and homework is used ineffectively, and schools are not doing enough to prepare students to use their time wisely.360 The NCEE had serious concerns about the length of the school day and wanted to add additional days to the school calendar. “In England and other industrialized countries, it is not unusual for academic high school students to spend 8 hours a day at school, 220 days per year. In the United States, by contrast, the typical school day lasts 6 hours and the school year is 180 days.”361

Lastly, the NCEE expressed concern about the teaching profession and teacher preparation. The Commission was unhappy with the caliber of student entering the pre- service college programs; “too many teachers are being drawn from the bottom quarter of graduating high school and college students.”362 Additionally, the NCEE wanted colleges to improve their teacher preparation curriculum, spending less time in educational methods courses and spending more

359 Rick Ginsberg. “Education Reform Reports of Historical Significance.” Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd ed. New York, New York. Macmillan, 2003. http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1944/Education- Reform.html, Accessed July 12, 2017. 360 National Commission on Excellence in Education. “A Nation at Risk: Imperative for Educational Reform. 361 Ibid, p. 29. 362 Ibid, p. 29. 128

time in subject matter courses. The NCEE also addressed the growing shortage of qualified math, English, science, and foreign language teachers, as well as, suggested a higher average salary for public educators.

Excellence in Education- NCEE Recommendations

The NCEE provided a lengthy set of recommendations for public, private, parochial, and colleges to follow to increase America’s excellence in education. The

Commission presented a set of requirements for high school graduation that mandated all diploma-seeking students emphasize the ‘Five New Basics’ during their high school career.363 The new curriculum would consist of: 4 years of English, 3 years of mathematics, 3 years of science, 3 years of social studies and one-half year of computer science. The Commission also suggested that college-bound students study a minimum of 2 years of foreign language. It was the opinion of the Commission that “…knowledge of the New Basics is the foundation of success for the after-school years and, therefore, forms the core of the modern curriculum.”364 However, even though the NCEE did recommend that study in the New Basics include instruction in the fine and performing arts, it did not provide a recommendation for the length of time a student should study these subjects.

The NCEE, also focused on student performance standards, expectations, and admission requirements, and recommended that schools adopt more challenging

363 Ibid. 364 Ibid, p. 31. 129

subject content. In addition, the NCEE wanted schools to develop measurable standards to consistently determine the extent of student growth. The Commission believed that if high school students were given more challenging materials and schools raised their expectations of student performance and conduct, four-year colleges and universities should raise the requirements for admission. Further, the NCEE recommended more time was needed for instruction in the New Basics. “We recommend significantly more time be devoted to learning the New Basics. This will require more effective use of the existing school day, a longer school day, or a lengthened school year.”365 NCEE encouraged districts and legislatures to extend the school day to a minimum of seven hours and extend the calendar to 200-220 school days from the current 180; doing so would allow students and teachers to accommodate instruction and mastery in the New

Basics.

The Commission also issued a seven-part recommendation for improving teacher instruction, and in turn, the preparation of America’s students. First, pre-service educators should meet higher educational standards, and universities should be evaluated on how well their graduates meet standardized criteria. Second the, NCEE recommended that salaries for the teaching profession be increased and highly skilled teachers given an opportunity for peer-reviewed tenure. In this way, skilled teachers would be rewarded and lesser teachers encouraged or terminated. Third, teachers should be provided an eleven-month contract to encourage professional work during

365 Ibid, p. 31. 130

summer recess. Fourth, salary schedules to distinguish among beginning and veteran teachers should be established with a clear path defined for advancement. Fifth, qualified individuals should be recruited to fill the shortage of teachers in mathematics and science until more certified educators are available for employment. Sixth, the NCEE recommended grants and loans be created to encourage high achieving students to enter the teaching profession. Seventh, the NCEE recommended that distinguished teachers should assist in developing pre-service programs and supervise novice teachers.

The last topic of recommendations made by the Commission related to the fiscal and leadership support of schools, encouraging officials and citizens to support the

NCEE proposed reforms financially. “We recommend that citizens across the Nation hold educators and elected officials responsible for providing the leadership necessary to achieve these reforms, and that citizens provide the fiscal support and stability required to bring about the reforms we propose.”366 The NCEE also called on the federal government to assist in funding the reform efforts. Recognizing that State and localities would struggle with the financial burden of large reform efforts, the NCEE called on the federal government to assist with channeling financial support from public and private resources noting; “Excellence costs. But in the long run mediocrity costs far more.”367

National Response to the NCEE Recommendations

366 Ibid, p. 39. 367 Ibid, p. 40. 131

Shortly after the publication of the NCEE A Nation at Risk (1984), the US

Department of Education published The Nation Responds: Recent Efforts to Improve

Education. The report was divided into three distinct sections. The first was a summary of national developments in response to the reform efforts recommended in A Nation at Risk. The second section reported each state’s efforts to answer the challenge of responding to the NCEE reforms. The last section of the report contained brief examples of reform initiatives in select local, collegiate, and private organizations that could be used as a model for others.

The Nation Responds revealed that the public acceptance of education reform was at an all-time high. Citing a number of sources, the National Parent Teachers

Association membership, identified through a U.S. Department of Education survey, found over 700 news articles, from national periodicals, published in response to the

1983 report. Also, many professional organizations, such as: Forum of Educational

Organization Leaders, Council for American Private Education, National Education

Association, and the American Federation of Teachers, actively participated in studies and taskforces to evaluate many of the recommendations made in A Nation at Risk.

According to Newsweek magazine, interest in American public education was the second most popular topic in the 1984 Presidential Election. Proponents of educational reform were optimistic about the future of America’s schools. “What is most encouraging about current developments is that citizens, educators, and leaders of

132

business and government are acting on the understanding that education is a seamless garment, and are proposing and supporting comprehensive solutions.”368

While many in the public were optimistic about the impact of A Nation at Risk, some leading music educators were diligent in exploring the ramifications educational reform would have on school music programs. “Where does school music stand now in terms of pursuing excellence while adhering to current public policy?”369 Albert LeBlanc, professor of music education at Michigan State University, argued that school music programs were not guilty of many of the shortcomings found in A Nation at Risk. He suggested that collegiate music programs required students to take more credits than other education majors, as well as subjecting students to more homework, or practicing, than many of the other education majors. LeBlanc went as far as to compare the task of learning music to taking a foreign language. “The cognitive task of learning music is analogous to that of learning a foreign language.”370 In addition, LeBlanc highlighted eight action points for music educators that needed to do to best advocate for music education during this reform movement.

1. Readily supply facts to the public about music study 2. Become involved politically 3. Join local associations and groups to advocate and study 4. Don’t sacrifice class time for other activities “more worthwhile” 5. Keep high visibility programs, “you may need showy programs to retain a base of public support.” 6. Don’t allow quality to suffer for the sake of quantity. 7. Ask for necessary resources

368 US Department of Education. “The Nation Responds: Recent Efforts to Improve Education.” Department of Education. Washington, D.C. 1984. 369 Albert LeBlanc. “Nation at Risk: Opportunities Within the Essentials Report.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 70 No. 1 1983, p. 30. 370 Ibid, p. 31. 133

8. Create results based on your own determination, do not expect assistance371

In fact, music educators had a right to be skeptical of the reform movement.

Early in his presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan explored the idea of defunding the

National Endowment for the Arts(NEfA).372 What impact that may have had on music, education in public schools is unclear. Through efforts with Senators and Congressman,

Livingston Biddle, who was formerly an assistant staff member to Senator Claiborne Pell, drafted the legislation for the creation of the NEA and National Council for the Arts,

(Biddle was appointed by President Carter to chair NEfA) was able to keep the NEA funded and supported with federal monies. Paul Lehman, then President of MENC, in testimony before a Congressional Committee on Education and Labor, urged Congress to provide the same level of support to arts programs, like the NEA, as it did for the

National Science Foundation.373

Educational Reports of Differing Opinion

Several educational reports were published in the years preceding and immediately following A Nation at Risk. The Music Educators National Conference

(MENC) was particularly interested in Boyer’s High School: A Report on Secondary

Education in America, Adler’s The Paideia Proposal, and Goodlad’s A Place Called School:

371 Ibid, p. 31. 372 Livingston Biddle. Our Government and the Arts: A Perspective From the Inside. Americans for the Arts. Washington, D.C. 1987. 373 Paul Lehman. “Lehman Makes Music’s Case on Capitol Hill.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 70 No. 9, 1984, pp. 64-67. 134

Prospects for the Future. Each of these reports placed the fine arts more centrally in the public school curriculum.

In The Paideia Proposal, Adler, called for a renewal in American education.

Inspired by John Dewey’s challenge to education, Adler suggested that all students receive the same quality education. The Paideia Proposal speaks starkly regarding the importance of common curriculum, education for democracy, or preparing students to be great citizens and lifelong learners, and a more robust teacher preparation curriculum.374 In support of the arts, Adler’s proposes that certain subjects are indispensable to public education: language, literature, and the fine arts. Additionally, students should have quality instruction in mathematics, science, history, geography and social studies. Adler categorized a comprehensive education into three main tracts.

These tracts included: 1. Language, literature, and fine arts; 2. Mathematics and natural science; and 3. History, geography, and social studies.375“They (subjects) compromise the most fundamental branches of learning. No one can claim to be educated who is not reasonably well acquainted with all three.”376 Adler argued that students must be given an opportunity to experience the fine arts. All students needed to engage in the arts, not merely know about them or understand their history. “Music and other works of art can be dealt with in seminars in which ideas are discussed; but…they need an additional

374 Tom Byrnes. “The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto.” Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 34 No. 4, 1983, pp. 61-62. 375 Mortimer Adler. The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto. New York, New York. Macmillan, 1982. In his text he has three columns that represent these subjects and recommends when these courses should be offered. 376 Ibid, p. 82 135

treatment to be…enjoyed and admired for their excellence…the best way to understand a piece of music is to sing it or play it.”377 Adler argued for the placement of teacher specialists, in all subject areas, to have an important role in public schools. “We need specialists for our economic prosperity, national welfare and security, for continued progress in all the arts and sciences, and in all fields of scholarship.”378

Sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Ernest

Boyer published his educational report (High School: A Report on Secondary Education in

America) on secondary education in America. The basis of his report was a study “…to offer recommendations, stimulate discussion about secondary education, and, in the end, reaffirm the nation’s historic commitment to public schools.”379 A team of twenty- five educators were chosen to visit preselected high schools and document their experiences in each school. The schools represented a diverse sample of America’s public schools.380 Fifteen public schools were chosen for the field observations, and researchers spent a minimum of twenty days at each institution. Reports from each school were submitted to the Carnegie trustees and reviewed. Vito Perrone, Dean of the

School of Teaching and Learning at the University of North Dakota, was the lead researcher for the field observations. He reviewed each report and identified commonalities, areas of importance, and contradictions and prepared a report of these

377 Ibid. 378 Ibid. 379 Ernest Boyer. High School: A Report on Secondary Education in America. New York, New York. Harper & Row, 1983, p. xv. 380 Ibid. 136

elements. This allowed Boyer and his colleagues to identify the most pressing concerns for public schools.

Based upon the results of the study, recommendations were directed to a diverse range of public school stakeholders. “This report has no single audience. We direct our recommendations to students, teachers, and school administrators…to college professors…to policy makers…and other education organizations in positions of influence (emphasis mine) …to parents, grandparents, and everyone who deeply cares about the quality and prospects for life in America now and in years to come.”381

The report concluded with an action agenda that identified twelve priorities for high schools to ensure quality education for all students. One of the striking recommendations of the foundation was to require more core curriculum classes for graduation and strengthen the courses offered in each subject. The core curriculum included: literature, US history, western civilization, non-western civilization, science, technology, mathematics, foreign language, the arts, civics, health, and work. “The arts are an essential part of the human experience. They are not a frill. We recommend that all students study the arts to discover how human beings use nonverbal symbols and communicate not only with words but through music, dance, and the visual arts.”382

John Goodlad’s A Place Called School was published in 1984. Goodlad was was a prolific educator and researcher. He and a team of researchers spent more than eight years visiting, interviewing, studying, and gathering data about public schools.

381 Ibid. p. xv. 382 Ibid, p. 304. 137

Uninspired by the reform rhetoric of A Nation at Risk and based upon his research,

Goodlad argued in his text that a return to the basics was not the solution for improving

America’s schools. A more comprehensive reform of school was needed. Goodlad viewed the school as a tool for providing all students with the same level of quality education. The arts were more centrally positioned in Goodlad’s vision of public school.

Students who received a comprehensive arts education, and can appreciate the aesthetic contributions and understand other cultures more thoroughly.383 Goodlad believed that an arts education should begin in the elementary levels and continued through secondary school. He encouraged teachers and school leadership to use their time more efficiently to ensure students were not deprived access to a broad course of study. “To those legislators, school board members, and others who often sound as though they would deprive children of access in school to social studies, science, health education, and the arts in order to assure attention to reading, writing, spelling, and mathematics, let me say simply that the sacrifice is unnecessary.”384 Goodlad proposed that secondary students receive a minimum of ten percent of their educational program in study of the arts. Additionally, Goodlad recommended that students have the opportunity to cultivate their own interests, allowing them to take additional courses in arts.

383 John Goodlad. A Place Called School. New York, New York. McGraw-Hill, 1984. 384 Ibid, p. 136. 138

The MENC Response

The educational reform momentum that was fueling national interest in

America’s schools was further embraced by MENC. Much work was being done to study the concerns brought up in the varying educational reports in response to the NCEE recommendations. MENC recognized the challenges facing music education and worked diligently to create standards and foster relationships with professional organizations that shared similar concerns. In 1986, the MENC Committee on Standards was created.

Members included: Charles Hoffer, Delmer Aebischer, Marguerite Hood, Wayne Jipson,

John McManus, Priscilla Smith, Keith Thompson, and Alfred Wyatt. The committee met and reexamined the previously published (1974) The School Music Program:

Descriptions and Standards in light of the many educational reforms of the 1980s.

Concerned with the quality and excellence movement of the times, MENC published new recommendations for school music programs. The School Music Program represents “…the response of music education profession to the national movement to improve quality in education. The identification of standards and achievement levels demonstrated that the music education profession considered its work to be consequential, that it could measure music learning, and that it was committed to remaining relevant to American society.”385 Paul Lehman, serving at the time as the national president of MENC, stated that the revised publication was “…prepared to

385 Michael Mark. “Music Education and the national standards: A historical review.” The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning. Vol 6 No. 2, 1995, p. 38. 139

reflect the needs and realities of education in the late 1980s.”386 The revision of The

School Music Program differed from the original 1974 publication: “the two editions differ considerably, the second (1986) being outcomes based, with specific recommendations on what students should be able to do as the result of music instruction in school.”387

MENC’s revision (1986), begins with a summary of educational reforms, referencing many of the studies cited above. MENC stated: “of all the various reports, those that are the most thorough and thoughtful, those that are best documented, and those that are based on the most extensive field work also tend to be most strongly supportive of the arts.”388 MENC was determined to demonstrate that every American student should have a quality education in the arts. The School Music Program begins with a rationale for including music in the curriculum, in these 10 statements:

1. Music is worth knowing. It is desirable for every member of society 2. An important purpose is to transmit cultural heritage 3. Music has an obligation to develop each students’ musical potential through meaningful musical experiences. 4. Music provides outlet for creativity and self-expression 5. Through music students can better understand the nature of mankind, and other cultures 6. Music provides an opportunity for success for students who may struggle with other curricular subjects 7. Studying music can increase students’ satisfaction from music 8. Study the profound symbol system of music 9. Embrace the non-quantifiable, cope with the subjective 10. Enhance the quality of life and school experience

386 MENC. The School Music Program: Descriptions and Standards. MENC. Reston, Virginia, 1986. 387 Michael Mark. “Music Education and the national standards: A historical review.” The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning. Vol 6 No. 2, 1995, p. 38. 388 MENC. The School Music Program: Descriptions and Standards. MENC. Reston, Virginia, 1986. 140

Now prepared with a rationale for including music in the school curriculum,

MENC emphasized three primary responsibilities for teaching music. “…The fundamental purpose of teaching music in the schools is to develop in each student, as fully as possible, the ability to perform, to create, and to understand music.”389 Thus, quality school music programs, were designed to produce music students that:

1. Are able to make music, alone and with others; 2. Are able to improvise and create music; 3. Are able to use the vocabulary and notation of music; 4. Are able to respond to music aesthetically, intellectually, and emotionally; 5. Are acquainted with a wide variety of music, including diverse musical styles and genres; 6. Understand the role music has played and continues to play in the lives of human beings; 7. Are able to make aesthetic judgements based on critical listening and analysis; 8. Have developed a commitment to music; 9. Support the musical life of the community and encourage others to do so; and 10. Are able to continue their musical learning independently.

The 1986 School Music Program publication mirrored the 1974 edition in providing descriptions about basic and quality level programs. However, the grade level learning goals differed greatly. In the revised guide, each grade level now had outcomes based on students creating musical experiences. As in the previous standards, attention was given to performing, reading, listening and describing, but music education had embraced a new goal with the addition of creating standards.

389 Ibid. 141

Much like the 1974 document, MENC made recommendations for staffing and facilities and compared minimum level program standards to quality level program standards. MENC cautioned against complacency in quality level music programs, “even the level described here as a quality program often will not be satisfactory for the district that aspires to excellence.”390 Therefore, It became the responsibility of each school, to evaluate its own program and then develop systematic plans to ensure quality and excellence.

Even with the 1986 School Music Program publication, however, Paul Lehman

(then active President of MENC) recalls, “…feeling a sense of unease that this publication was not adequate to deal with the prevailing conditions…education reform seemed generally indifferent to the arts.”391 With an eye ever towards the future of music education, MENC published future goals. The MENC Goals for 1990 stated:

1. By 1990, every student, K-12, shall have access to music instruction in school. The curriculum of every elementary and secondary school, public or private, shall include a balanced, comprehensive, and sequential program of music instruction taught by qualified teachers. At the secondary level, every student shall have an opportunity to elect a course in music each year without prerequisites and without conflicts with required courses. 2. By 1990, every high school shall require at least one unit of credit in music, visual arts, theater, or dance for graduation. 3. By 1990, every college and university shall require at least one unit of credit in music, visual arts, theater, or dance for admission.392

390 Ibid. 391 Paul Lehman. Personal Correspondence with Researcher. August 26, 2017. 392 MENC. The School Music Program: Descriptions and Standards. MENC. Reston, Virginia, 1986. 142

Preparing for the Future

Dr. Lehman’s lingering concern about music’s national importance in education was soon validated. In 1989, President George Bush, with the National Governors

Association (NGA), convened the Charlottesville Education Summit in Charlottesville,

Virginia on September 27. From this two-day meeting six national goals for education were developed. All six goals, along with two others created following the Summit, served as the basis of the national Goals 2000 legislation of 1994.

Earlier in the 1980s, the NGA had been working on formulating educational reform plans following the release of A Nation at Risk. In 1986, the NGA published Time for Results: The Governors’ 1991 Report on Education, which outlined what states should do to produce results over a five-year period, leading to 1991. NGA explicitly stated that its concern for education stemmed from economic worries; “Better schools mean better jobs. Unless states face these questions, Americans won’t keep our high standard of living. To meet stiff competition from workers in the rest of the world, we must educate ourselves and our children as we never have before.”393 As a result of the report, the NGA recommended seven major areas of focus for states to emphasize:

1. Create a more highly professional teaching force; 2. Strengthen school leadership and management; 3. Promote a greater parental involvement and choice in education; 4. Help at risk children and youth meet high standards; 5. Make better and more effective use of new technologies; 6. Make better use of the school resources, such as facilities;

393 NGA. Time for Results: The Governors’ 1991 Report on Education. National Governors Association. Washington, DC. 1986. 143

7. Strengthen the mission and effectiveness of colleges and universities.394

The chairman of the NGA, Lamar Alexander, proposed that each state create clear and concise state-level goals to better report what students should know and do.

Alexander commented: “We’ll regulate less, if schools and school districts will produce better results.”395 In addition, NGA recognized the need for additional funding and the importance of forming relationships with educators and other reform minded organizations if any educational progress was to be made. To closely monitor the progress made in public schools, NGA partnered with the Education Commission of the

States and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CSSO). The NGA commissioned annual reports from the states to monitor the progress made through 1991 towards these goals.

As the 1989 Charlottesville Educational Summit approached, NGA was working with White House staff and President-elect Bush to establish an agenda for the summit.

NGA recognized that setting goals and targets were the most important ways of continuing the educational reform initiatives they proposed in 1986. In an effort to direct the summit towards goal creation, NGA proposed to White-House staffers that the Governors and President meet to “…establish long-range goals and targets for educational improvement.”396 The governors agreed that educational goals should be a

394 Maris A. Vinovskis. “The Road to Charlottesville: The 1989 Education Summit.” National Education Goals Panel. Diane Publishing. Collingdale, PA 1999. https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/negp/reports/negp30.pdf, August 14, 2017. 395 Ibid, p. 18. 396 Ibid, p. 25. 144

national initiative, not a federal mandate. “The goals should be viewed as national rather than federal and should encourage local governments and the private sector, in addition to the federal government and state governments, to find ways of supporting their attainment.”397

At the summit, six working groups were formed to address specific concerns.

Participation was limited to members of the groups the President, Cabinet members, and other high-ranking officials.398 The six groups were each assigned a focus: Teaching:

Revitalizing a Profession, The Learning Environment, Governance: Who’s in Charge?,

Choice and Restructuring, A Competitive Workforce and Life-Long Learning, and Post-

Secondary Education: Strengthening Access and Excellence.399 From the summit, the

NGA and President Bush agreed that the first step to restructuring America’s schools was to develop a broadly agreed upon set of national goals. To monitor the progress nationally toward these goals, the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) was established shortly after the summit. Its purpose was to report to the President and

NGA the progress of the nation toward achieving the goals. In addition, committees were established to study the feasibility of creating voluntary standards and national assessments to measure success of the goals.

397 Ibid, p. 26. 398 Ibid. 399 Ibid. 145

In his State of the Union address, January 31, 1990, President Bush informed the nation of the first set of national goals that were created at the Charlottesville Summit.

On February 25, 1990 the NGA adopted the goals as follows:

Goal 1: Readiness - By the year 2000, all children will start school ready to learn Goal 2: School Completion – By the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90% Goal 3: Achievement and Citizenship – By the year 2000, American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. Goal 4: Science and Mathematics – By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. Goal 5: Adult literacy and Lifelong Learning – By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Goal 6: Safe, Disciplined and Drug-free School – By the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.400

Voluntary Standards: The Beginning

Prior, and immediately after, the adoption of the national goals by the NGA, many educators, associations, and coalitions met to assess art’s role in educational curriculum. In 1986, MENC, in collaboration with the American Council for the Arts

(ACA), convened a meeting in Philadelphia to discuss ways in which art education could be strengthened in public schools.401 From this meeting, the joint organizations formed the Ad Hoc National Arts Education Working Group and created the document:

400 National Council on Education Standards and Testing. “Raising Standards for American Education. A report to Congress, the Secretary of Education, the National Education Goals Panel and the American People. US Dept. of Ed. Washington D.C., 1992. 401 John T. McLaughlin. Towards a New Era in Arts Education. American Council for the Arts. New York, New York, 1988. 146

Philadelphia Resolution and Concepts for Strengthening Arts Education in Schools.402 In

1988, the ad hoc group formally became the National Coalition for Education in the Arts

(NCEA) with the express purpose “to develop and monitor policy affecting education in the arts.”403 MENC, ACA, and the NCEA later convened a 1987 symposium, “Towards a

New Era in Arts Education”, that was held at Interlochen Arts Center in Michigan.404 The symposium brought together various leaders from arts advocacy associations to address the growing concern of the place of art education in public school. Participants addressed many of the issues of educational reform rhetoric, such as: teacher education, art curriculum, partnership for arts education, and advocacy strategies. From this symposium, the participants authored the document, The Interlochen Proposal for

Arts Education. Another arts coalition created to establish voluntary standards was the dance, art, music, and theater (DAMT) association. The DAMT was comprised of the

Executive Directors from each art association. Members of DAMT seized the opportunity to advocate for the arts shortly after creation of the national educational goals by the

NGA.

In the fall of 1991, the gauntlet for the place of the arts in public education now appeared. The National Governors’ Conference issued a policy statement setting forth what the governors proposed to do to reform education, and there was no mention of the arts in their report. A few weeks later, in December 1991, the Council of Chief State

402 Ibid. 403 Michael Mark. “Music Education and the national standards: A historical review.” The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning. Vol 6 No. 2, 1995, p. 40. 404 Ibid. 147

School Officers sponsored a conference on large-scale assessment, and Paul Lehman on behalf of MENC attended the conference. In an interview, Lehman shared during a break at the conference, he spoke with Ramsay Selden, the Director of the State

Assessment Center at the Council. Lehman asked him what was needed to get music and the other arts back on the nation’s education agenda. Selden replied, “That’s easy— you have to develop a set of standards specifying what kids should know and be able to do.”405 Selden cited as a model the standards developed three years earlier by the

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.”406 As a result of the conversation,

Lehman became convinced that the only way to garner national support for music education was for music education to create a set of national standards. He met with

John Mahlmann, MENCs Executive Director at the time, to discuss the possibility of creating national music standards. With the support of MENC president Karl Glenn, “We

(Lehman and Glenn) called a meeting of the DAMT group…and by mid-January of 1992 we had appointed a task force in each of the four arts and set to work to develop national standards in this new format.”407

Shortly after the formation of DAMT task forces, Lehman argues, one of the most monumental instances in education reform occurred: “About ten days after our task forces were organized there occurred one of the most remarkable and fortuitous coincidences in the history of arts education: on January 24 a prestigious group called

405 Paul Lehman. “Dissertation questions” recevied by author, 27. Aug. 2017/ 406 Ibid. 407 Ibid. 148

the National Council on Education Standards and Testing (NCEST) issued a report calling for the development of national standards in all of the various disciplines, including the arts.”408

Supported by the George H.W. Bush administration and the NGA, the NCEST made strong recommendations for the creation of national standards and assessments.

“NCEST found that the absence of explicit national standards keyed to world-class levels of performance severely hampers the ability to monitor the nation’s progress toward the six national goals.”409 NCEST reported that without a set of national standards, students were being held to low expectations that were not meeting the national goals.

Further, NCEST maintained that a set of explicit standards would provide common ground for reforms in curriculum, assessment, instruction, and other educational concerns. To meet the growing concern of student outcomes NCEST, recommended the nation “…build on this system by setting in motion the appropriate mechanisms that will result in local commitment to high national expectations for achievement for all students. We do not propose a national curriculum. Standards would provide the basic understanding that all students need to acquire, but not everything a student should learn.”410

408 Ibid. 409 National Council on Education Standards and Testing. “Raising Standards for American Education. A report to Congress, the Secretary of Education, the National Education Goals Panel and the American People. US Dept. of Ed. Washington D.C., 1992, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338721.pdf, Accessed August 5, 2017. 410 Ibid, p. 4. 149

In its document, Raising Standards, NCEST outlined the process for creating high quality standards for public education. The council would oversee standards in the following ways:

1. Coordinate the development of standards 2. Develop an overarching statement 3. Develop content standards 4. Develop student performance standards 5. Develop school delivery standards 6. Deliver system performance standards 7. Certify content and student performance standards as world class411

With financial assistance supported from US Department of Education’s

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, The National Endowment for the

Humanities, National Science Foundation, and other Federal agencies, such as the

National Assessment of Educational Progress and the National Governors Association, many associations set to create a system of content standards to meet the new reform measures.

With DAMT already working to develop a set of voluntary national standards, the report by NCEST further propelled the work of arts associations: “…Within a few weeks we had received grants to pursue our work from the Department of Education, the

National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. At that point the DAMT Group, feeling the need for a little more dignity, changed its name to the Consortium of National Arts Education Associations.(CNAEA)”412

411 Ibid, p. 38. 412 Paul Lehman. Personal Correspondence with researcher 150

National Standards for Arts Education

The CNAEA worked diligently and quickly to develop a set of national standards that could be presented to the U.S. Department of Education. “We finished our work on schedule and released our standards at a gala press conference at the National Press

Club in Washington in March of 1994. The Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, was present to accept the standards, and he spoke enthusiastically about the importance of the arts in education. The arts standards received remarkably widespread press coverage across the nation, and almost all of it was favorable.” In its report, National

Standards for Arts Education: What Every Young American Should Know and Be Able to

Do in the Arts, members of the various arts disciplines presented “…specific competencies that the arts education community nationwide believes are essential for every student.”413 CNAEA believed that America’s students should be able achieve five goals from an arts education curriculum: communicate at a basic level in four arts disciplines, communicate proficiently in at least one art form, develop and present basic analyses of works of art, have an acquaintance with exemplary works of art, relate various types of arts knowledge and skills within and across the arts disciplines.414

Further, an arts education wasn’t viewed as a luxury, CNAEA argued, it was necessary:

“…an education in the arts also benefits society because students of the arts disciplines gain powerful tools.”415 These tools include:

413 John Mahlmann. National Standards for Arts Education: What Every Young American Should Know and Be Able to Do in the Arts. US Department of Education. Washington D.C., 1994, p. 23. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED365622.pdf, accessed Aug. 1, 2017. 414 Ibid, p. 125. 415 Ibid. 151

1. Understanding human experiences, past and present 2. Learning to adapt to and respect others 3. Learning artistic modes of problem solving through expression, analysis and development 4. Understanding the influences of the arts in culture 5. Making decisions in situations where there are no defined answers 6. Analyzing nonverbal communications 7. Communicating through thoughts and feelings in a variety of modes416

The purpose of arts standards in each discipline was to increase the quality and accountability of arts instruction at all levels of education. The standards were designed to provide students, administrators, schools, and stakeholders with a valuable tool for assessing arts programs. Further, the passage of Goals 2000: Educate America

(stemming from 1989 NGA summit) included the arts as a core subject. Therefore, all arts disciplines needed to be able to assess what a quality arts education entailed. In short, arts education standards were viewed as important for two fundamental reasons: they provided a definition for what a quality education in the arts should be and standards offered a way for schools to expect excellence from their students.417

Voluntary content standards in the arts needed to: ensure the standards were internationally competitive, reflected the best knowledge about teaching and learning, and developed with a transparent adoption process. Music (and all the arts disciplines) created two different types of standards: content standards and achievement standards. Content standards were designed to “…specify what students should know and be able to do in the arts disciplines.”418 Achievement standards “…specify the

416 Ibid, p. 12-13. 417 Ibid. 418 Ibid, p. 24. 152

understandings and levels of achievement that students are expected to attain in the competencies, for each of the arts, at the completion of grades 4, 8, and 12.”419

The now created content standards, published as the, Voluntary National Standards in music for grades K-12 were stated as follows (achievement standards will be available in the appendices):

1. Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music 2. Performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music 3. Improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments 4. Composing and arranging music within specified guidelines 5. Reading and notating music 6. Listening to, analyzing, and describing music 7. Evaluating music and music performances 8. Understanding relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts 9. Understanding music in relation to history and culture420

The Voluntary National Standards represent the first set of standards supported by

MENC that provided student based outcomes and assessments for measuring the instruction students received. These standards became the basis for state level associations to develop related content standards for the schools in their state.

Outcome based standards established criteria for assessing what students know and should be able to do. The Voluntary National Standards paved the way for the revised standards of 2014. Lehman unequivocally believes in the importance of outcome based standards: “The importance of standards specifying what kids should know and be able to do is now, I believe, indisputable.”421 Through difficult work, collaboration, studies,

419 Ibid, p. 24. 420 Ibid. 421 Paul Lehman. Personal Correspondence 153

and symposiums, MENC and other arts organizations fought for acceptance of arts education in America’s public schools. The importance of these standards is many, but perhaps the “…most important advantage is that schools and teachers are more likely to be successful if they have a clear vision of what they seek to achieve than if they don’t.”422

National Core Arts Standards

Much like the Voluntary National Standards of 1994, the Core Arts standards of

2014 were created with an eye towards education reform. After the publication of of

Goals 2000, education reform was a staple of American public education. No Child Left

Behind (NCLB) was signed into law on January 8, 2002. NCLB was designed to “close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.”423 Concerned that America’s schools were still behind their international counterparts, NCLB increased the federal role in public schools. States were given funding incentives to meet the new initiatives set forth by this NCLB legislation. It was not mandatory to participate in NCLB, but states that did not comply were denied Title I funding. The federal government was concerned with bringing all students to a level of proficiency in reading and math. Assessments were to be administered in grades 3, 8,

422 Ibid. 423 US Dept. of Ed. “Public Law print of PL 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2017. 154

and high school.424 Furthermore, the federal government would monitor the success of schools through adequate yearly progress. Adequate yearly progress is defined at the state level. Adequate yearly progress must define and demonstrate continuous and substantial yearly improvements. The states must create a measure that is “… sufficiently rigorous to achieve that goal within an appropriate time frame and link progress primarily to performance on a State’s final assessment system…”425 Schools are required to have a minimum level of progress for all its students. If schools failed to meet these measures for two consecutive years, school systems would be required to permit their students to transfer to schools that were meeting growth targets.426

Concerned about the progress schools were making under the NCLB legislation, the NGA the Council of Chief State School Officers (CSSO), and Achieve, (an organization comprised of governors and prominent business leaders), published the report:

Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World Class Education.

Benchmarking stated: “American education has not adequately responded to these new challenges. The United States is falling behind other countries in the resource that matters most: human capital.”427

424 Alyson Klein. “Issues A-Z No Child Left Behind: An Overview.” Education Week. April 10, 2015. Accessed Aug. 21, 2017 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind- overview-definition-summary.html/ 425 Dept. of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/standardsassessment/guidance_pg5.html. Accessed, September 16, 2017. 426 Ibid. 427 Craig D. Jerald. Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World Class Education. NGA. Washington, D.C. 2008, p. 9. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/0812BENCHMARKING.pdf. Accessed Aug. 10, 2017. 155

Concerned about the failing US economy, reformers targeted the school as the primary avenue for improving students’ ability to compete and excel in a global economy. Benchmarking recommended five key actions to ensure America’s schools improved to a level necessary for the U.S. economy to once again flourish:

1. Upgrade state standards by adopting a common core of standards 2. Leverage states’ influence to ensure curricular material was aligned to common core standards 3. Revise state policy for teacher training, recruitment, and retention 4. Hold schools accountable through monitoring, and support for consistent high performance 5. Measure state-level education performance by examining student achievement and attainment to compete in the 21st century economy428

In an effort to further strengthen America’s public schools, the NGA and CCSSO convened a meeting in Chicago (April of 2009) to discuss the creation of common core standards. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were deemed necessary to address the growing concern that students were not prepared for a college education: “The

Institute for Education Sciences reported that 20 percent of students in 2007-2008 indicated that they took remedial courses in college.”429 The remedial course rate was even higher for two-year institutions and open-enrollment colleges.430 CCSSO and state level officials determined that new standards were needed to better prepare students for college and career readiness. It was decided that new standards needed to begin with an examination of secondary schools and work backwards to primary grades:

428 Ibid, p. 10. 429 David T. Conley. The Common Core State Standards: Insight into Their Development and Purpose. CCSSO, p. 4.. http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2014/CCSS_Insight_Into_Development_2014.pdf, Accessed Aug. 4, 2017. 430 Ibid. 156

“Development of the new standards was guided with one goal in mind: to prepare students for college and careers. So rather than designing the standards from kindergarten up, they were designed from high school down.”431

The Common Core State Standards actually did not represent a fundamental change in measuring student understanding. Instead, they were designed from a different, reverse, approach: asking what students should know and be able to do at the end of a high school education. The CCSS encouraged schools to develop students’ ability to think critically and go farther in their understanding of content mater. For example, in mathematics and English, students were not expected to recognize or differentiate between genres or concepts. Rather, the CCSS expected students to

“…conjecture, analyze, reason, communicate, discern…and integrate, summarize, convey, cite, and interpret.”432

Along with this Common Core curricular analysis, leaders in the arts education field began studying what a more comprehensive, critical arts education would include.

The National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCCAS), comprised of leaders for respective arts associations, professional artists, state level officials, and researchers, began examining international arts standards. NCCAS found that international arts standards generally were classifiable in three broad areas: generating/problem solving, expressing/realizing, and responding/appreciating.433 When NCCAS revised the

431 Ibid, p. 5. 432 Ibid, p. 9. 433 NCCAS. National Core Arts Standards: A Conceptual Framework for Arts Learning. NCAAS. http://nccas.wikispaces.com/file/view/Framework%2005%2022- 14.pdf/513758852/Framework%2005%2022-14.pdf, Accessed Aug. 12, 2017. 157

Voluntary National Standards, special attention was given to the “…process-oriented nature of the arts.”434 As the work was being done to create the National Core Arts

Standards (NCAS) educational leaders believed an emphasis on instructional improvement was necessary for more comprehensive student learning standards. These instructional improvements included:

1. Defining artistic literacy through a set of overarching Philosophical Foundations and Lifelong Goals that clarify long-term expectations for arts learning 2. Placing Artistic Processes and Anchor Standards at the forefront of the work 3. Identifying Creative Practices as the bridge for the application of the Artistic Processes across all learning 4. Specifying Enduring Understandings and Essential Questions that provide conceptual thought lines and articulate value and meaning within and across the arts discipline 5. Providing Model Cornerstone Assessments of student learning aligned to Artistic Processes.435

Defining the NCAS

The philosophical foundation of the new NCAS', placed the arts as an integral part of curriculum and society for their impact on communication, personal realization, connection to history and culture, a means towards wellbeing, and as an act of engaging the community.436 The arts represented a powerful means of communication through symbols and metaphors, e.g., students that are well educated can interpret and analyze music, as well as communicate musically with their own ideas and creations. Being an active member of an arts experience was designed to allow students to discover their individual voice, e.g., the history of arts in different cultures is well documented and

434 Ibid, p. 6. 435 Ibid, p. 6. 436 Ibid. 158

exposing students to a variety of unique perspectives is to allow them to make connections across cultures and better understand others. The philosophical foundations of the NCAS became the keystone for yet another revision of arts standards.

As a part once again of revising the standards, the NCAS adopted a critical element when updating the standards. Artistic processes were defined as the “…cognitive and physical actions by which arts learning and making are realized.”437 The NCAS were founded on the following artistic processes: creating; performing/producing/presenting; responding; and connecting.438 These processes were identified through two studies conducted by the College Board, A Review of Selected State Arts Standards and

International Arts Educations Standards: A Survey of the Arts Education Standards and

Practices of Fifteen Countries and Regions.439 As an outcome, the NCCAS defined each of these artistic processes with the intention of emphasizing arts “…hands-on and mind-on nature.”440 The resulting definitions are stated as follows:

1. Creating- conceiving and developing new artistic ideas. 2. Performing- (dance, music, theater): realizing artistic ideas and work through interpretation and presentation. 3. Presenting- (visual arts): interpreting and sharing artistic work. 4. Producing- (media arts): realizing and presenting artistic ideas and work 5. Responding- understanding and evaluating the arts convey meaning 6. Connecting- relating artistic ideas and work with personal meaning and external context.441

437 Ibid, p. 11. 438 Ibid. 439 Ibid. 440 Ibid, p. 11. 441 Ibid, p. 12. 159

The defined processes were further examined through their connection to anchor standards. Anchor standards “…describe the knowledge and skills that teachers expect students to demonstrate throughout their education in the arts.”442 Anchor standards may be more easily defined as what students should know and be able to do through each of the artistic processes of creating, performing, etc. Anchor indicate what students should be know and be able to do through a quality education in the arts. Each discipline created related, specific performance standards for elementary through middle school grade levels. Additionally, the performance standards for secondary education were broken into three skill levels: proficient, accomplished, and advanced.443

For music education, this was the first time performance specific standards were created for younger learners.

Finally, the NCAS were created through using enduring understanding and essential questions. “Enduring understandings and essential questions focus on what are often called big ideas.”444 By using enduring understandings, educators were able to provide summary statements to students on the main ideas and processes that are essential to a student’s success. Student mastery is evidenced by their ability to “…explain, interpret, analyze, apply, and evaluate its core elements.”445 Essential questions were considered necessary for the new standards, as they required students to think critically and analyze material more carefully. Essential questions were defined as “…questions that

442 Ibid, p. 12. 443 Ibid. 444 Ibid, p. 14. 445 Ibid, p. 14. 160

are not answerable with finality…”446 Additionally, essential questions were designed to encourage transfer from one grade level understanding to the next.

NCCAS and NAfME

Members of National Association for Music Education (formerly MENC) worked closely with NCCAS to develop new standards for music education. These members included college and public educators: Scott Shuler, Richard Wells, Richard Baker, Bob

Cooper, Thomas Dean, Armalyn De La O, Terry Eder, Barbara J. Good, Michael Jothen,

Carolynn A. Lindeman, Johanna J. Siebert, and Robyn Swanson. Guided by the NCCAS philosophical foundations and anchor standards, NAfME created a set of standards that would “…make it easier to develop instruction, because the structure provides authentic sequence for outcomes…”447 The NCAS included fewer performance standards than the

Voluntary National Standards, but encouraged schools and students to explore musical understandings in a deeper manner. Each anchor standard included an enduring understanding and an essential question. The updated 2014 National Core Arts

Standards for music are the following:

Anchor Standards for Ensembles

Creating- Artistic Process

• Common anchor 1: Imagine- Generate musical ideas for various purposes and contexts • Common anchor 2: Plan and Make- Select and develop musical ideas for defined purposes and contexts

446 Ibid, p. 14. 447 Scott C. Shuler, et al. “The New National Standards for Music Education.” Music Educators Journal Vol. 101 No. 1, 2014, p. 41. 161

• Common anchor 3: Evaluate and Refine-Evaluate and refine selected musical ideas to create musical work that meets appropriate criteria • Common anchor 3: Present- Share creative musical work that conveys intent, demonstrates, craftsmanship, and exhibits originality

Presenting- Artistic Process

• Common anchor 4: Select- Select varied musical works to present based on interest, knowledge, technical skill, and context • Common anchor 4: Analyze- Analyze the structure and context of varied musical works and their implications for performance • Common anchor 4: Interpret- Develop personal interpretations that consider creators’ intent • Common anchor 5: Rehearse, Evaluate, Refine- Evaluate and refine personal and ensemble performances, individually or in collaboration with others • Common anchor 6: Present- Perform expressively, with appropriate interpretation and technical accuracy, and in a manner appropriate to the audience and context Responding- Artistic Process

• Common anchor 7: Select- Choose music appropriate for a specific purpose or context • Common anchor 7: Analyze- Analyze how the structure and context of varied musical works inform the response • Common anchor 8: Interpret- Support interpretations of musical works that reflect creators’/performers’ expressive intent • Common anchor 9: Evaluate- Support evaluations of musical works and performances based on analysis, interpretation, and established criteria

Connecting- Artistic Process

• Common anchor 10: Connect- Synthesize and relate knowledge and personal experiences to make music • Common anchor 11: Connect- Relate musical ideas and works to varied contexts and daily life to deepen understanding448

In addition to anchor standards, NAfME included descriptions of high school performance level expectations. Programs would be evaluated and designated as proficient, accomplished, and advanced. Students in proficient programs were to

448NAfME. 2014 Music Standards. Accessed Aug 17, 2017: https://nafme.org/wp- content/files/2014/11/2014-Music-Standards-Ensemble-Strand.pdf. 162

demonstrate understanding at a foundational level. Proficient levels of achievement were attainable by most students in a high school level music course.449 Accomplished performance levels were identified through more technical proficiency and the ability to transfer learning to other disciplines and problems. Accomplished levels were attained through rigorous sequences of high school courses. Advanced levels of proficiency were deemed the highest levels of understanding, e.g., students should be able to make connections to other arts disciplines and across curricular subjects. Further, advanced students should be able to use at least one art form “to exploit their personal strengths and apply strategies to overcome personal challenges as arts learners.”450

Today’s Standards

The NCAS are the most recent development of learning standards. Guided by previous standards, NAfME has created a set of standards with the goal to assist students with higher level thinking skills and more thoroughly prepare students for college or careers. Like the standards documents before, the 2014 Music Standards are concerned with student growth, accountability, and college and career readiness. “With a focus on processes, enduring understandings, essential questions, and assessments, these arts standards represent a new and innovative approach to arts education that will serve students, teachers, parents, and decision-makers now and in the future.”451

449 NCCAS. National Core Arts Standards: A Conceptual Framework for Arts Learning. NCAAS. Accessed Aug 21 2107 from: http://nccas.wikispaces.com/file/view/Framework%2005%2022- 14.pdf/513758852/Framework%2005%2022-14.pdf 450 Ibid. 451 Ibid. 163

Chapter 6 Conclusions, Implications, and Final Thoughts

Introduction

This study was intended to analyze the development of professional learning standards created by the Music Supervisors’ National Conference (MSNC), Music

Educators National Conference (MENC), and the National Association for Music

Education (NAfME). In 1921,Music Teachers National Association (MTNA) supported the first set of printed standards, A Standard Course in Music. From 1921 through present,

NAfME has allocated significant time and resources studying and advocating for learning standards in public school. Over a ninety-six-year period, MENC authored numerous statements of belief and five professional learning standards: A Standard Course in

Music (1921), A Basic Course in Music Study (1936-42; revision to 1921 document, however, the secondary level standards were never completed), The School Music

Program: Description and Standards (1976), The School Music Program: Description and

Standards (1986), Voluntary National Music Standards (1994), and Core Arts Standards

(2014).

The title, Lead by Standards?, was intended to suggest the importance of raising questions about the purpose, nature, and impact of professional music learning standards. Throughout the examination of these documents it is clear music learning standards reflected general trends in educational thinking rather than led any change of educational values or thoughts. Regardless, the national standards endorsed by music’s professional association served as a predictable reaction to shifting trends, philosophies,

164

and public education writ large. Each standards document can be viewed in a philosophical lens, in so far as, each document served to provide guidance, principles, goals, and rationales for educators to enrich professional practice. What is most important to remember is that music education standards are designed to serve the interests of professional practice and, in the end, need to be judged on the basis of their educational outcomes, rather than what might be the deepest or most abstract forms of philosophical analysis. Finally, the greatest impact of the standards may be the philosophical guidance they provided; more so than advocacy and equity for public music education.

Research Questions:

This study began by asking six research questions to guide the evaluation of music learning standards.

1. What Music Standards were created between 1921 and 2014?

a. 1921-A Standards Course in Music

b. 1936-A Basic Course in Music Study (never completed at the

secondary level)

c. 1976- The School Music Program Description and Standards

d. 1986-The School Music Program Description and Standards

(revision/update)

e. 1994-National Voluntary Music Standards

f. 2014-Core Arts Standards

2. Were the Standards printed/published for professional use? 165

a. 1921-standards were published and endorsed by MSNC

b. 1936-elementary standards were published and endorsed, but the

secondary level standards were never completed or published.

c. 1976- standards were published and endorsed by MENC

d. 1986- standards were published and endorsed by MENC

e. 1994- standards were published and endorsed by MENC

f. 2014- standards were published and endorsed by

3. What historical factors perhaps led to the development of music standards?

a. 1921- Rural reform, urbanization, industrialization, world war 1,

Reorganization of Secondary Education

b. 1936- great depression, progressive education, child-centered

movement, science/testing movement

c. 1976-Post-War, NDEA-Federal Funding, Progressivism/Fear, Red

Scare, Yale/Tanglewood Symposium

d. 1986-Reagan administration, Excellence in Education, Federal Funding

e. 1994-Goals 2000, Federal Funding/Core Subject Classifications,

f. 2014- NCLB, Reauthorization of NCLB, 21st Century, Economic

concerns

4. Were there common factors that influenced the development of music

standards?

In each document, it is evident music education responded to shifting

educational thoughts and practices. In each instance of learning standards, 166

music education was seeking to be an important part of the public school

curriculum. In the first printed standards document of 1921, music

education, working closely with NEA, showed how music was a valuable part

of the public school curriculum. Historically, each document has served as a

vehicle of advocacy and inclusion for music in public school curriculum.

5. Are there similarities among the standards as they appeared throughout

history?- see figure below

6. Are there differences among the standards as they appeared throughout

history? – see figure below

Figure 1: Comparing National Music Standards

Standards Title Focus Rec. Content Standards Publications 1921 Standard Teacher/Outcome No No/Yearly Aims Course of Based Study Skills & Knowledge 1936/38 A Course of Teacher/Outcome No No/Yearly Aims Study Based Skills & Knowledge 1974 The School Teacher Based Yes Yes/3 Standards: Music Instruction. Began to Performing, Organizing, and Describing. Program: include student Descriptions outcomes. and Standards Basic/quality Skills & Knowledge 1986 The School Included more student Yes Yes/4-6 Music outcomes. Distinguish Performing/Reading, Creating, Program: between Basic/Quality Listening/Describing, Valuing. Descriptions Programs HS Courses: and Standards Skills & Knowledge Making, Understanding, and Valuing 2nd ed. 1994 National Achievement Yes 9 Content Standards. Standards for Standards/Student Two Levels proficient/advanced Arts Education outcomes Skills & Knowledge 2014 National Core Music Literacy Yes Three Artistic Processes: Arts Standards Student Independence Creating/Performing/Responding 11 Common Anchor Standards Multiple levels of attainment, novice, intermediate, proficient, accomplished, and advanced.

167

Chronological Summary of Standards:

The development of the 1921 standards may coincide with many social reform efforts occurring in America. Education was impacted, in the mid to late 1800s, by the common school movement.452Rural reform and industrialization impacted public schools, curriculum, and learning standards. Prior to the twentieth century, most music education was offered in urban schools to a small number of American students. At the turn of the century, through rural reform initiatives, this began to change. According to the 1910 Federal Census nearly three-fifths of the American school population, or

58.5%, lived in rural communities.453 The census found the total rural population was

16,230, 406 and was expected to grow to 17,000,000 by the end of the 1910 school year. With the majority of America’s school-aged children attending rural schools, it became imperative to analyze and improve the quality of education across the American landscape. In order to fully address the rural reform efforts, President Roosevelt appointed the Country Life Commission, in 1908 to address the “problems of farm life…the problems of farm life have received very little consideration and the result has been bad for those who dwell in the open country, and therefore bad for the whole nation.”454 As national interest grew, MSNC took notice and began working to ensure all

America’s school children had access to music education.

452 The common school movement, advanced by Horace Mann, was the belief that public schools should be more inclusive, offer a wider curriculum, and be delivered by professional educators. In fact the committee for the reorganization of secondary education, in partnership with NEA, was evaluating how the changing population could best benefit by public education. The Music Education Council worked diligently to evaluate and create learning standards that reflected the importance of public education in 1920s America. 453 Monahan, A.C. The Status of Rural Education in the United States. United States Bureau of Education Bulletin, No. 8, Washington, D.C., 1913. 454 Bailey, L.H. Report of the Commission on Country Life. New York, Sturgis & Walton, 1917. p. 9-10. 168

The growth of public school population and industrialization went hand in hand, as families moved from rural areas to urban centers.455 Prior to the industrialized age formalized education was minimal and largely dependent on tuition, status, gender, and access. The growth of industry in urban centers, spurred the growth of public schools and a need to reevaluate curriculum, standards, and practice. “The market revolution permeated the new nation (America) almost from the beginning, and this reinforced an ideology of individual self-improvement that was popular across a wide cross-section of the public.”456 The increase in industry, coupled with this new ideology of self- improvement, generated a greater demand for public schools, along with the belief education would better prepare students to meaningfully contribute to the developing communities. At the time of the second industrial revolution, around 1900, much of the groundwork for the comprehensive high school had already been laid. With increasing enrollment, in part to child labor laws, educational leadership, such as NEA, saw the need to provide a differentiated curriculum of vocation, commercial, and college preparatory work within in a single school setting.

The 1921 standards publication A Standard Course in Music, authored by the

Educational Council (a committee operating under the guidance of the Music

Supervisors’ National Conference), established guidelines for music instruction in public

455 Carl, Jim. “Industrialization and Public Education: Social Cohesion and Social Stratification.” Internation Handbook of Comparative Education, by Robert Cowen, Andreas M. Kazamias, and Elaine Unterhalters. Springer, 2009, p. 503. 456 Ibid, p. 512. 169

schools. The standards provided yearly aims, procedures, materials, and attainments to evaluate music instruction and learning in public schools.

Additionally, recommendations were made for minimum amounts of instructional time, teacher qualifications, and equipment and facilities necessary to facilitate a high level program. A Standard Course in Music represented the first standards publication to hold students and teachers accountable to a prescribed level of music achievement. MSNC adopted these standards for music learning through the eighth year of schooling, which represented the end of primary instruction. The overall structure of A Standard Course was supported by eight musical content standards that all students should know after music instruction through primary school:

• Every child shall have acquired the use of his singing voice and pleasure in song as a means of expression. • Every child shall have learned to enjoy music as something heard as well as something expressed. • Every child shall have acquired a repertory of songs which may be carried into the home and social life, including “America” and “The Star Spangled Banner.” • Every child shall have developed aural power to know by sound that which he knows by sight and vice versa. Every child shall have acquired the ability to sing at sight, using words, a unison song of hymn-tune grade; or using syllables, a two-part song of hymn-tune grade, and the easiest three-part songs; these to be in any key; to include any of the measures and rhythms in ordinary use; to contain accidental signs and tones easily introduced and in general to be of the grade of difficulty of folk-songs such as the “Minstrel Boy;” also knowledge of the major and minor key signatures. • Every child talented in musical performance shall have had opportunity for its cultivation. • The children shall have developed a love for the beautiful in music and taste in choosing their songs and the music to which they listen for the enjoyment and pleasure which only good music can give.

170

• The children shall have acquired the ability to appreciate the charm of design in songs sung; to give an account of the salient features of structure in a standard composition after a few hearings of it; to identify at least the three-part song form from hearing; and to recognize and give titles and composers of a reasonable number of standard vocal and instrumental compositions. • Above all, children shall have arrived at the conception of music as a beautiful and fine essential in a well-rounded, normal life.457

In order to achieve these eight guiding standards, the Educational Council created yearly aims and attainments to assess student understanding. The aims during the first four years of music instruction were similar in scope, with further refinement in each subsequent year of instruction. However, the yearly aims for musical achievement were centered more on teacher instruction rather than student outcomes. For example, the first musical aim in year one, was “to give every child the use of his singing voice and pleasure in song as a means of expression.”458 A Standard Course provided yearly aims that increased in difficulty as the student progressed through public school, up through the eighth year of instruction: “to develop concerted singing direction of mass chorus practice as well as to continue the usual class-room sight-singing and part-singing.”459

However, both of these aims (from year one and year eight) are more centralized on teacher instruction to ensure a student outcome, rather than focused on student understanding. The focus of the content in A Standard Course in Music is skill and knowledge specific. There is no guidance for assessing student understanding or mastery. The outcomes, or attainments, at the end of each year of instruction do not go

457 Educational Council. “A Standard Course in Music.” Music Supervisors Journal. Vol. 7 No. 5, 1921, p. 12. 458 Ibid, p. 12. 459 Ibid, p. 12. 171

far enough in measuring student learning. The attainments at the end of the first year of instruction include:

1 Ability to sing pleasingly a repertory of 30 to 40 rote-songs appropriate to the grade, including one stanza of “America.” 2 The reduction of the number of “monotones” to 10 percent or less of the total number of pupils. 3 Ability of 90 percent of the pupils to sing individually, freely, correctly, and without harmful vocal habits, some 5 of the songs sung by the class as a whole. 4 Preference on the part of the children for good tones rather than bad, and the disposition to love the best of the music they have sung or heard.

These musical attainments are centrally focused on the musical product of public school instruction. Little effort is made to ensure that student understanding, or mastery, is central in the outcomes of musical instruction.

The revision to A Standard Course in Music was an exhaustive attempt to update and revise music learning standards for students in primary through secondary school.

In 1936, MSNC tentatively approved revisions for music curriculum in the primary grades and intermediate grades. The standards, for both the primary and intermediate grades, included objectives of music instruction, evidences of growth and achievement, correlation and integration, individual differences, and resources and materials recommendations.460 Much like the 1921 standards, the objectives in A Course of Study in Music were primarily focused on skill and knowledge acquisition. The objectives for music instruction were:

1. To help each individual child to use his singing voice well. 2. To help each individual child to respond to musical rhythm with free and appropriate movements of his body.

460 MENC. Yearbook of the MENC, Twenty-ninth Year, 1936. 172

3. To cause the probably already existing germ of interest in music to develop into a definite feeling that singing and other forms of musical participation, including listening and creating, are among the most delightful activities of the school day. 4. To bring the children into contact with a large amount of good music so that in learning to sing beautiful songs and listening attentively to compositions heard they will gradually come to hear more precisely and analytically and will through their singing and listening learn to understand the details of music better and will therefore appreciate it more keenly. 5. To familiarize the children with the notation of simple songs so that there may be laid the beginnings of a sound foundation for sight singing, and of still keener understanding of music itself through the study of its notation.461

The standards in the 1936 revision, as in the original 1921 document, are heavily focused on teacher instruction rather than student learning and mastery. “A great deal depends, here as everywhere, upon the teacher…if the teacher is dull or unmusical, the children will hardly come to the point where they love music and consider it important…”462 In A Course of Study in Music, MSNC summarized the ways and means of attaining the overarching objectives for students was not as important “…as that the teacher, supervisor, and administrator shall think through the whole program of music education, shall decide what things are of fundamental importance…for insuring the achievement of a significant and functional result.”463 The revision of the 1921 standard document included guidance for measuring evidence of growth and achievement, however, no formal assessments or benchmarks were provided in these updated standards. Instead, teachers were encouraged to evaluate student growth through a series of questions. For example, “are they aware of the phrasewise construction of the

461 Ibid, p. 164. 462 Ibid, p. 164. 463 Ibid, p. 167. 173

songs and do they listen for repetition and contrast?” “Can they sing many songs from memory, including a few “community” songs?”464 MSNC trusted the answers to these, and other, guiding questions would demonstrate the quality of instruction and were more reliable than formal testing.

The revised standards made recommendation about correlating and integrating music in the instruction of other curricular subjects. MSNC recognized the trend of cross curricular instruction and recommended that music educators cooperate with other teachers to integrate music across disciplines. However, MSNC cautioned teachers against superfluous integration; “…that often the correlation between music and a subject like geography is a word (emphasis original) correlation only.”465 Additionally, music educators were reminded the importance of music education was not the relation to other subjects but the ‘spiritual influence’ it had on students.466 Subsequently, MSNC advised music educators must always stress musical skill, understanding, and taste over cross-curricular teaching principles.

These standards recognized and addressed individual musical skill differences, and how educators could account for these variances in music classes. “The wise teacher will note the musically precious ones and will encourage them to do more than the others. They will constitute the choir which will be allowed to sing the new songs before the others attempt them.”467 Furthermore, musically inclined students were to

464 Ibid, p. 168. 465 Ibid, p. 169. 466 Ibid, p. 169. 467 Ibid, p. 169. 174

be chosen first for rhythmic instruction, encouraged to join piano classes, become student conductors, and given preferential priority in other musical opportunities. In contrast, “musically dull pupils…will be encouraged to do as well as the can, but will not be treated harshly when they have reached the psychological limit beyond which they cannot go.”468

Lastly, MSNC provided a list of materials necessary to ensure a quality music education. The list included eight essential items for teachers and schools to provide for students to experience a comprehensive and meaningful music education.

1. Several books of rote songs 2. A keyboard instrument 3. If no keyboard is available, a chromatic pitch pipe must be provided 4. Set of classroom music books (for grades 2 and higher) 5. A set of rhythm band instruments 6. A high quality phonograph 7. A radio 8. A small collection of piano music for the instructor to play for students469

In 1976, the National Commission on Instruction (NCI) of MENC prepared the next standards document, The School Music Program: Description and Standards. NCI recognized the impact MENC had on the music teaching profession and leveraged their influence to publish and support a broader and more comprehensive standards document for music education. NCI prepared this document to support a 1970 MENC policy statement for music education in public schools. The following objectives were given priority importance by MENC:

468 Ibid, p. 169. 469 Ibid, p. 170. 175

• Lead in efforts to develop programs of music instruction challenging to all students, whatever their socio-cultural condition, and directed towards the needs of citizens in a pluralistic society. • Lead in the development of programs of study that correlate performing, creating, and listening to music and encompass a diversity of musical behaviors. • Assist teachers in the identification of musical behaviors relevant to the needs of their students • Advance the teaching of music of all periods, styles, forms, and cultures. • Develop standards to ensure all music instruction is provided by teachers well prepared in music • Assume leadership in the application of significant new developments in curriculum, teaching-learning techniques and technology, instructional and staffing patterns, evaluation, and related topics, to every area and level of music teaching • Lead in efforts to ensure that every school system allocates sufficient staff, time, and funds to support a comprehensive and excellent music program.470

NCI designed the updated standards to reflect the goals and objectives of MENC.

The standards also attempted to better define the function of music in public schools and provide meaningful and measurable outcomes for school music programs. The 1976 standards explained three distinguishing features of a quality music program, as well as provided definitions of the various experiences necessary in a comprehensive music program. NCI stated quality music programs would include experiences that focused on performance, the creation or organization of music, and lastly, the ability to describe music through listening and analyzing.471 NCI classified performance experiences as any musical skill that related to the production of musical sound, such as using the body as an instrument, singing, using found sound sources, and playing instruments. Musical

470 Frances Andrews. “Goals and Objectives for Music Education.” Music Educators Journal, Vol 57 No. 4, 1970, p. 24. 471 MENC. “The School Music Program: Description and Standards.” Reston, MENC, 1976. 176

skills related to organizing experiences included improvisation, understanding the sequence of sound, and composition and arranging. Finally, students should have been able to listen and describe music through various ways: movement or dance, diagrams or drawings, verbal descriptions, notation, and the ability to read and interpret music and terminology.472

The 1976 standards were intentionally written to be general rather than specific.

“This document is neither a curriculum guide nor a course of study…the language is usually general rather than specific.”473 The standards were written for students aged three to eighteen for general music, and more robust musical standards began at age nine through 11, approximately grades 4-6. Through each grade level, standards were provided that met the three distinguishing features of a quality music program

(performing, organizing, and describing). The standards provided to primary and intermediate level students (pre K-grade 6) were only provided for a general music instructional setting. However, the standards became more comprehensive for students in grades 7-12. Beginning in the junior high through secondary schools, standards were provided for the following instructional settings:

• General music • Folk Instruments • Music Listening Laboratory • Composition Laboratory • Electronic Music • Interdisciplinary studies • Performance groups (string orchestra, full orchestra, mixed choir, girls choir, etc.)

472 Ibid. 473 Ibid. 177

• Keyboard classes • Instrumental classes (beginning and intermediate strings, winds, percussion) • Chorus class (non select ensembles) • Basic Musicianship • Music Literature • Music History • Music Theory • Composition • Non-Western Music • Stage Band (jazz band) • Specialized Ensembles • Exploratory Instrumental Classes • Guitar, Recorder, and other instruments • Music Theater474

The 1976 standards differ greatly from the two previous standards documents.

Recognizing the need for music education to provide measurable outcomes, MENC provided standards for a broad, yet thorough, music education. The School Music

Program was the first standards document to equip music educators with measurable and meaningful outcomes through multiple musical experiences; performing, organizing, and describing. The objectives in each musical experience and grade level represent a shift towards student understanding and mastery. For example, the musical outcomes in the primary standards, included the following: notating ideas of pitch, rhythm, and dynamics; responding with appropriate body movements to various musical elements; and describing, discussing, and discriminating basic concepts of sound.475 These are the first printed standards that place the outcomes of musical instruction on student results and understanding.

474 Ibid. 475 Ibid. 178

The 1985 revision to A School Music Program was MENC’s response to educational reforms of the 1980s. The quality in education movement, along with a

Nation at Risk propelled MENC to update and revise music learning standards.

Additionally, the updated standards were another way of addressing MENC’s goals for

1990:

1.By 1990, every student, K-12, shall have access to music instruction in school. The curriculum of every elementary and secondary school, public or private, shall include a balanced, comprehensive, and sequential program of music instruction taught by qualified teachers. At the secondary level, every student shall have an opportunity to elect a course in music each year without prerequisites and without conflicts with required courses. 2. By 1990, every high school shall require at least one unit of credit in music, visual arts, theater, or dance for graduation. 3. By 1990, every college and university shall require at least one unit of credit in music, visual arts, theater, or dance for admission.476

MENC still categorized music learning standards into multiple experiences: performing, creating, and organizing. However, the categories were slightly updated.

Performing was expanded to included reading and organizing was changed to listening/describing. Additionally, MENC added the category, valuing, to student learning standards. These changes allowed the standards to encompass more musical experiences and skills. Furthermore, the 1985 revision included descriptions for basic and quality level learning and programs. This change is a direct reflection of the quality in education reform movements brought forward by A Nation at Risk.

476 MENC. The School Music Program: Description and Standards. MENC Reston Va, 1985. 179

In 1994, MENC and the Consortium of National Arts Education Associations

(CNAEA) comprised of the American Alliance for Theater and Education, National Art

Education Association, and National Dance Association, published the National

Standards for Arts Education. The updated standards built on the existing work done by

MENC and previous standards documents. However, the 1994 standards were the first professional music standards to be authored with collaboration from other professional arts organizations and these new standards situated music in context with other arts disciplines. The CNAEA developed a set of guiding principles to direct student understanding and learning from primary through secondary education. These standards recommended, by the conclusion of secondary education, students should:

1. Be able to communicate at a basic level in the four arts disciplines, dance, music, theater, and the visual arts. 2. Be able to communicate proficiently in at least one art form, including the ability to define and solve artistic problems with insight, reason, and technical proficiency. 3. Be able to develop and present basic analyses of works of art, form structural, historical, and cultural perspectives. 4. Have an informed acquaintance with exemplary works of art from a variety of cultures and historical periods. 5. Be able to relate various types of arts knowledge and skills within and across the arts disciplines.477

These five objectives represented the overarching intent for a comprehensive arts education. CNAEA understood the importance of a thorough arts education.

Additionally, it was agreed that any instructional program in the arts must address the

477 John Mahlmann. National Standards for Arts Education: What Every Young American Should Know and Be Able to Do in the Arts. MENC, Reston, VA. 1994, p. 3, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED365622.pdf, Accessed Aug. 1, 2015. 180

uniqueness, plurality of the arts and should provide multiple experiences. “If our young people are to be fully educated, they need instructional programs in the arts that accurately reflect and faithfully transmit the pluralistic purposes, skills, and experiences that are unique to the arts- a heritage that also deeply enriches general education.”478

As a result, students would be ensured a broad, yet deeper understanding of the various arts disciplines and their value in education and society.

Each discipline (dance, music, theater, visual arts) was tasked with creating individual content standards for instruction in grades kindergarten through high school.

The 1994 voluntary national music standards document, like previous music standards documents, developed standards for grades kindergarten through fourth (primary), grades fifth through eighth (intermediate), and grades nine through twelve (secondary).

MENC recognized three types of musical experiences; performing, creating and responding to music.479 In each grade level band, content and achievement standards were created to better assess and evaluate student learning. MENC created nine content standards that remained the same throughout each grade level (K-12).

The music content standards were: 1. Singing, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music 2. Performing on instruments, alone and with others, a varied repertoire of music 3. Improvising melodies, variations, and accompaniments 4. Composing and arranging music within specified guidelines 5. Reading and notating music 6. Listening to, analyzing, and describing music 7. Evaluating music and music performances

478 Ibid, p. 22. 479 Ibid. 181

8. Understanding relationships between music, the other arts, and disciplines outside the arts 9. Understanding music in relation to history and culture480

While music content standards remained consistent throughout every grade level, student achievement standards increased in difficulty as students progressed.

Much like the 1976 and 1985 standards, the 1994 standards adopted by the MENC were centered on developing students’ skills and knowledge and focused less on teacher methods and outcomes. The 1994 standards grouped achievement standards into two clusters in the primary and intermediate grades. In grades K-4, there are 36 achievement standards that should be met before the fifth grade year. In the intermediate years of music instruction, there are over 30 achievement standards to be met before secondary music education begins. In the secondary levels of education, there are more achievement standards, as two levels of student achievement are measured. Beginning in secondary courses, achievement standards were given for both proficient and advanced levels of student understanding. The 1994 music standards represent the first set of published standards that advocated and provided advanced student understandings of musical outcomes.

The 2014 Core Arts Standards represent a continuation of MENC’s focus on music learning standards. Yet, these new arts standards also represent a large departure for professional music standards. The most recent music standards expand on student learning outcomes. Music learning standards are divided into four learning categories,

480 Ibid, pp. 30-33. 182

Figure 2: National Core Arts Standards481

or artistic processes: creating, performing, responding, and connecting. Student learning standards are further expanded within each artistic process through common anchor standards. The Core Arts Standards has eleven common anchor standards that parallel across all arts disciplines and grades. The anchor standards serve as tangible student

481 National Arts Standards. National Core Arts Standards: A Conceptual Framework for Learning. Accessed: http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/sites/default/files/NCCAS%20%20Conceptual%20Framework_4.pdf. 183

outcomes for the artistic processes. The anchor standards describe the general skills and knowledge students are expected to demonstrate. The figure below describes these eleven anchor standards.

Lastly, each arts discipline was responsible for creating content specific student performance standards. Like previous standards documents, MENC developed learning standards at the primary, intermediate, and secondary learning levels, ranging from pre- kindergarten through grade twelve. However, the 2014 Core Arts Standards are the first music standards in which learning targets were developed at the primary and intermediate level for each grade, rather than age bands, beginning in pre-kindergarten.

Shown by the more thorough and unique performance standards developed for the secondary level, MENC created four customized learning strands for secondary level courses: ensembles, guitar or keyboard classes, composition/theory, and music tech. In addition to expanding the performance standards across multiple courses, MENC provided music learning performance standards at five different levels of achievement: novice, intermediate, proficient, accomplished, and advanced.

The new standards have been designed to help educators and students organize the musical learning experiences within each artistic process. In order to ensure students, understand musical experiences, the standards are designed to encourage critical thinking. Each standard was created using enduring understandings and essential questions. Enduring understandings are statements that highlight the important ideas of each learning standard and connect music learning across disciplines. “Enduring understandings should also enable students to make connections to other disciplines 184

beyond the arts.”482 Educators are encouraged to assess student knowledge of enduring understandings through each individual’s “…ability to explain, interpret, analyze, apply and evaluate its core elements.”483 Essential questions ensure students understand each content specific standard or skill. Enduring understandings and questions were created for all eleven common anchor standards and each artistic process. The table below illustrates the relationship between the anchor standards, enduring understandings, and essential questions for the artistic process creating.

Figure 3: General Music; Grade 6, Creating.484 Anchor Standards Enduring Understandings Essential Questions Generate and The creative ideas, How do musicians conceptualize artistic ideas concepts, and feelings that generate creative ideas? and work. influence musicians’’ work emerge from a variety of sources. Organize and develop Musicians’’ creative How do musicians make artistic ideas and work. choices are influenced by creative decisions? their expertise, context, and expressive intent. Refine and complete Musicians evaluate, and How do musicians artistic work. refine their work through improve the quality of openness to new ideas, their creative work. persistence, and the application of appropriate criteria.

482 Ibid. 483 Ibid. 484 National Core Arts Standards. http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/customize- handbook?bundle_name%5B6%5D=6&bundle_name%5B7%5D=7&ss_grade_level%5B3%5D=3&ss_gra de_level%5B12%5D=12&ss_grade_level%5B13%5D=13&ss_grade_level%5B14%5D=14&include%5Be u%2Feq%5D=eu%2Feq&include%5Bpv%5D=pv. Accessed, Oct. 1, 2017. 185

The above example illustrates the manner in which NAfME used the standards to connect music to other disciplines (anchor standards), provide critical thinking targets for music students (enduring understandings), and ensure students are learning content specific material within each artistic process (essential questions). The new music Core

Arts Standards were developed to increase student understanding, independence, and musical literacy. Rather than focus on skills and knowledge (1994 standards: what students should know and be able to do), the updated standards focus attention on authentic experiences and encourage students to become artistically literate. The

National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCCAS) defines artistic literacy as: “artistic literacy is the knowledge and understanding required to participate authentically in the arts.”485 Unlike previous standards, MENC revised these standards to connect more meaningfully to other arts disciplines. The 1994 standards had two standards (content standard 8 & 9) that connected music to other art disciplines. The recent revision was written in a manner that connects each arts discipline more comprehensively. that eleven common anchor standards exist between the other art subjects. “Arts literacy also fosters connections among the arts and between the arts and other disciplines, thereby providing opportunities to access, develop, express, and integrate meaning across a variety of content areas.”486

485 National Arts Standards. National Core Arts Standards: A Conceptual Framework for Learning. Accessed:http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/sites/default/files/NCCAS%20%20Conceptual%20Framew ork_4.pdf 486 Ibid. 186

Implications for Music Education and Future Research

Education, and music education specifically, is a constant targets of educational reform efforts. Understanding the reform landscape and music education’s historical response is vital in preparing for future initiatives and reforms. National standards, for every subject, were designed with two primary objectives: 1. Identify what should students know and be able to do with this skill or knowledge, and 2. Ensure that there is a measure to know that students have learned what the standards intended.

Historically, education standards have been viewed as a way to improve education. Throughout music education’s inclusion in public education, there was discussion and consideration between holistic, child-centered education, and the demands of evaluation, testing, and measurement. This is not to suggest music educators ignored one strategy in favor of another, rather the juxtaposition of these contrasting ideas illustrates the demands placed on music educators to constantly justify music education in public school curriculum. These ideas are clearly evident during music education reform efforts from 1920. Prominent music educators, such as

Charles Farnsworth and James Mursell, both discussed the power of music to influence social interactions, as well as, the human spirit. Additionally, Farnsworth understood the impact evaluation and assessment had on education reform and sought to illustrate the need for music education to develop systems of measurement also. “…A standard of measurement is free from opinion, and is based on facts of accomplishment …the knowledge and technique we can measure, but love pertains to the world of spirit, and

187

eludes us. It escapes any form of measurement.”487 Although, Farnsworth admits

“…there is not a supervisor in the land who would not be glad to know where his schools stand on a scale…”488 However, during this same period, educators such as James

Mursell, advocated for a common view, or “unifying principles” to strengthen the importance of music education.489 “Such a unified view is urgently needed. We are confronted with divisions between music education in schools…such divisions have caused most serious misunderstanding…”490

Mursell advocated this idea to solidify music education in public school curriculum. Mursell believed a unified set of guiding principles would ensure music’s relevance in public school and advocated heavily for esthetic experience and social impact to be primary for music’s importance. Even though Mursell acknowledged the importance of musical facts and knowledge, he cautioned these elements of music should not be overemphasized in favor of more ethereal values. While it is easy to understand the sentiment of Mursell’s argument, however, it must be considered how difficult it would have been for music educators to adopt a belief system in music education that differed from reform initiatives in general education. The important element throughout each musical reform period is how thoroughly music educators examined differing perspectives to ensure a comprehensive music education for all students.

487 Charles Farnsworth. “The Educational Council.” Music Supervisors Journal. Vol. 8 No. 1, 1921, p. 24. 488 Ibid, p. 24. 489 Guy Whipple, ed. Thirty Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part II Music Education. Bloomington, IL. 1936. 490 Ibid. 188

After the launch of Sputnik, in 1957, music education was faced with a difficult situation. If music was to continue as an integral part of the school curriculum, a re- focusing of music’s value needed to occur. Music educators developed standards-based outcomes for music learning. This focus on outcome based achievement mirrored the educational reforms fueled by federal interest in math and science curriculum. In an effort to show that music could also be a basic course, music educators developed and adopted the School Music Program (1921). In this document, music educators stressed the beneficial nature of music to a society, its ability to transmit cultural heritage, and its ability to enhance the school experience. Additionally, the document reflected the first effort by music education to provide measurable student outcomes. This shift in student learning mirrored many of the reform efforts in general curricular courses. The resultant changing attitude toward student understanding and mastery was greatly influenced by changing philosophical ideas and federal funding after the launch of

Sputnik. It is easy to conclude this educational change was directly impacted by social, political, and financial influences.

The 1985 revision to the School Music Program is another document that may have been influenced by the aforementioned attitudes. After the publication of A Nation at Risk (1983), many Americans feared public schools were failing both students and society. The focus in education quickly shifted to quality. In the early 1980s, under the direction of the Reagan administration, the National Commission on Excellence in

Education (NCEE) was founded. The express purpose of this committee was to study and assess the quality of education in America’s public schools. Unfortunately for music 189

education, the Commission came to the conclusion that “our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world…the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.”491 Much of the report was based on concerns of student achievement on standardized tests, academic achievement compared to other nations, and the number of students enrolled in remedial college courses. The

Commission believed much of the educational decline was a result of increased curricular choices, lack of instructional time, low expectations for student performance, and teacher preparation. An enormous amount of federal resources was directed at correcting the deficiencies in the report published by the NCEE.

With society and educators beginning to adopt many of the recommendations by the NCEE, music educators were concerned with how music could remain a valued course, and not a distraction to the school curricula. The Music Education National

Conference’s (MENC) involvement at the political level did a great deal in providing a place for music during this reform movement. In the mid 1980s, the MENC directly lobbied Congress for access to the same amount of financial resources afforded to institutions like the NSF. With the help of the MENC, Senators, and Congressmen, legislation was drafted for the founding of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEfA)

491 National Commission on Excellence in Education. “A Nation at Risk: Imperative for Educational Reform.” United States Department of Education. Washington, D.C., 1983.

190

and the National Arts Council (NAC). The educational reform movement of the 1980s was a tumultuous period for music education, and the efforts of the MENC, NEfA, and

NAC were instrumental in giving music education a place in curriculum. The MENC revised the early standards (1976) to address the concerns of quality in education. The

1986 revision provided a distinction in learning at the basic and quality of level. This was a direct response to the quality in education movement that polarized much of the educational conversation in the early ‘80s. The revised document placed a greater emphasis on student outcomes and quality musical experiences through: performing, listening, describing, and creating standards. However, many in music education were convinced the revision of these learning standards was insufficient. Paul Lehman commented there was “…a sense of unease that this publication was not adequate to deal with the prevailing conditions…education reform seemed generally indifferent to the arts.”492

In the early 1990s, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement consistently relayed the message to teachers, administrators, and state officials that

“…education without standards would fail to achieve either equity or excellence.”493 In education, standards are categorized into three areas; content standards, performance standards, and opportunity to learn standards. Content standards are “…clear, specific descriptions of the skills and knowledge that should be taught to students…content

492 Paul Lehman. Personal Correspondence with Researcher. August 26, 2017. 493 Diane Ravitch. National Standards in American Education: A Citizen’s Guide. Brookings Institution. Washington, D.C., 1995, p. 12. 191

standards should be specific enough to be readily understood by teachers, parents, students, and others.”494 Performance standards “…indicate both the nature of the evidence required to demonstrate that contents standards have been met and the quality of student performance that will be deemed acceptable.”495 Lastly, opportunity- to-learn standards define the “…availability of programs, staff, and other resources that schools, districts, and states provide so that students are able to meet challenging content and performance standards.”496 These three types of standards are interdependent. Content standards establish the most important skills and knowledge students should learn; performance standards provide a means for assessment.

Opportunity-to-learn standards are designed to enforce minimum levels of resources to ensure that content standards and performance standards are being consistently met.

Throughout its history, the NAfME has allocated many of its resources to researching and developing standards. In 1976, The School Music Program: Description and

Standards was the first music education document to link the three types of standards to music learning. Paul Lehman, in a chapter from Performing with Understanding: The

Challenge of the National Standards for Music Education, cites ten benefits of having national standards for music education:

1. Students benefit by knowing expectations for learning. 2. It focuses efforts of all involved in learning process. 3. Standards clarify expectations. 4. Provide equity in music learning. 5. Further music’s value (not just as entertainment).

494 Ibid, p. 12. 495 Ibid, p. 12. 496 Ibid, p. 13. 192

6. Provide a basis for claiming needed resources. 7. Provide a basis for demanding qualified teachers. 8. Provide a basis for assessment. 9. Give music a place at the curricula table. 10. Provide vision and direction for music education.

While the ten benefits of national standards Dr. Lehman discusses may hold true for the 1994 standards, these ten statements do not hold true across all previous iterations of music learning standards. The first set of standards, A Basic Course of Study in Music, did not focus on student outcomes, rather was teacher and instruction focused. It is difficult to believe these standards enhanced students benefit when little attention was given to student focused outcomes. Comparing the standards against these ten statements will show that music learning standards were not always viewed or understood in this way.

193

Figure 4: Evaluating Standards against Dr. Lehman’s Benefits

Standards Student Focuses Clarify Provide Further Assist Demand Test Curr. Provide benefit efforts equity music with quality vision value resources teachers

1921 No- No- Yes- Yes- Yes No- No- No Yes Yes Teacher Standards for standards made this focused were teachers. tried to rec. standards outcomes directed Gave a materials document to common no formal did not. teachers curriculum standards

1936/38 No- No No- Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes teacher couldn’t focused agree to even finish document 1976 Begin Yes No- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes focus on written learner multiple grades

1985 Refining Yes No- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes student standards focus written for multiple grades 1994 Yes Yes No- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes grade clusters

2014 Yes Yes Yes- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes individual grades

To this day, Paul Lehman continues to be a strong advocate for National

Standards; “the common core state standards are an important step in the right direction. In today’s world it simply makes no sense to have different standards in every state.”497 However, some educators fear that national standards will infringe on local

497 Paul Lehman. “Reforming Education Reform.” Address to National In-Service Conference. Nashville, October 26, 2014. 194

control for education. For example, in Texas, the state legislature has passed bills making adopting the common core standards illegal.498 While developing individual learning standards unique to state and local needs has merit, so does ensuring that

America’s music students receive an equitable and similar education regardless of geography. “We owe it to the youth of America to see that National Core Arts Standards are embraced by arts teachers and school administrators and state education agencies across the nation, and I look forward to the day when the National Core Arts Standards and the Common Core State Standards- or their more acceptable replacement- will be merged.”499

Conclusion

Throughout the historical development of music education standards, consistent trends can be uncovered. In each instance of publication, it is clearly evident music educators carefully examined impacts of general education reform initiatives.

Additionally, the professional organization (NAfME, MENC, MSNC, etc.) allocated a tremendous amount of resources (funding, committees, research groups, etc.) to investigate and research learning standards before officially adopting them for the teaching profession. Furthermore, each instance of publication of music standards provided music educators with a platform for advocacy and inclusion in public school

498 Jeffrey Weiss. “Texas Common Core Solution in Search of a Problem.” The Dallas Morning News. Sept. 19, 2014. Accessed Oct. 14, 2017. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2014/09/19/texas- common-core-solution-in-search-of-a-problem 499 Paul Lehman. “Reforming Education Reform.” Address to National In-Service Conference. Nashville, October 26, 2014. 195

curriculum. While the published standards represented high benchmarks for teaching and learning, perhaps the most important outcome of music education standards is giving music educators a voice and a prominent place in the nation’s conversation of education. During every historical time period the published music education standards represent voluntary recommendations for adoption in schools, yet, provided a national conversation among educators, policy makers, school leaders, and communities for the inclusion of music curriculum in daily instruction.

Since the publication of the Core Arts Standards in 2014, only 15 states, and the

Department of Defense, have adopted the new learning standards.500. Three years since

NAfME’s adoption of the new music standards, less than thirty percent of states have moved towards new music learning standards. In contrast, forty-two states have adopted the Common Core Learning Standards, comprising over eighty percent of

America’s state school systems. If music education hopes to continue to hold a prominent place in public education, a unified sense of what is most important in teaching and learning is critical. The passage of Goals 2000, the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act, and No Child Left Behind (2001) ensured that core academic subjects were defined as: “English, reading or language arts, math, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts (emphasis mine), history and

500 NCCAS. The Status of Arts Standards Revision in the United States since 2014. National Core Arts Standards. January 31, 2017. Accessed Oct. 1, 2017. http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/sites/default/files/The%20Status%20of%20Arts%20Standards%20Re visions%20in%20the%20United%20States%20Since%202014%20FINAL.pdf 196

geography.”501 However, in March of 2014, only 27 states defined arts as core in their legislative or administrative code.502 Throughout its history, NAfME has showed tremendous effort in developing learning standards for music education. Often, it has been in response to larger educational concerns and reform efforts. While it is easy to critique learning standards after their development, it is difficult to research, develop, and respond quickly and effectively to criticism of education, and specifically music education. As music education approaches five years with the newest iteration of standards, it is an important time to evaluate the impact of these learning standards.

Understanding the history of music learning standards may assist in reflecting on the successes and areas of improvement of the 2014 Core Arts Standards. While it is unlikely new standards are necessary at this time, perhaps music educators would be well served to examine these standards in context of philosophical practice, and how, if at all, the newest standards are guiding the profession forward.

Further research is needed to better understand the impact of voluntary national standards. Evaluating state adoption of national standards, evaluating opportunity-to- learn standards at the local and state levels, evaluating in-service and pre-service music educators understanding and implementation of Core Arts Standards may provide more insight into the impact of learning standards and the processes necessary to develop and implement. It is difficult to predict the future of educational reform; however,

501 Arts Education Partnership. A Snapshot of Arts Education Policies. Arts Education Partnership, March 2014. Accessed Oct. 10, 2017. http://www.aep-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/A-Snapshot-of-State- Policies-for-Arts-Education.pdf 502 Ibid 197

evaluating past standards documents, reform initiatives, and understanding the historical context of learning standards development may position music education to proactively look to educational standards of the future. The standards currently adopted by NAfME may not represent all the important aspects of music learning, however, these standards represent an important step in looking towards the future of music education, adapting to the changing educational environment, and continuing the important work of assessing music’s value and importance to public education.

198

Bibliography

“A Declaration of Faith, Purpose and Action.” Music Educators Journal, Vol. 32 No. 5 April, 1946, p.16-17.

“A Statement of Belief and Purpose.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 22, no. 5, 1936, pp. 23–23.

“Before Sputnik -- and After.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 44, no. 3, 1958, pp. 19–19.

Adler, Mortimer. The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto. New York. Macmillan, 1982.

Alexander, Lamar. Time for Results: The Governors’ 1991 Report on Education. Washington, DC, National Governors’ Assoc., Center for Policy Research, 1986.

Andrews, Frances. “Goals and Objectives for Music Education: A Message from the President of MENC.” Music Educators Journal, Vol 57 No. 4, 1970, p. 23.

Arts Education Partnership. “A Snapshot of Arts Education Policies.” Arts Education Partnership, March 2014. Accessed Oct. 10, 2017. http://www.aep-arts.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/A-Snapshot-of-State-Policies-for-Arts-Education.pdf

Benedict, Cathy. “Chasing legitimacy: the US National Music Standards viewed through a critical theorist framework.” Music Education Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, 2006. P. 30.

Biddle, Livingston. Our Government and the Arts: A Perspective From the Inside. Washington D.C., ACA Books, 1988.

Birge, Edward B. History of Public School Music in the United States. Philadelphia, Oliver Ditson Co, 1937.

Birge, Edward B., et al. “Editorial Mosaics.” Music Supervisors' Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, 1930, pp. 15–17.

Blatz, Lidia. The Progressive Movement in Music Education: Influences on the Turn of the 21st Century, Florida Atlantic University, Ann Arbor, 2007, ProQuest, http://proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest- com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/docview/304839242?accountid=9783.

199

Boston School Committee. “The Boston School Committee Report of Special Committee 1837” in Music Education Source Reading from Ancient Greece, edited by Michael Mark. New York, Routledge, 2008, p. 87.

Boyer, Ernest. High School: A Report on Secondary Education in America. New York, New York, Harper & Row, 1983.

Britton, P. Allen. “MENC: Remembrances and Perspectives.” The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning. Vol. 5 No. 2, 1994, pp.

Cantor, Milton. The First Amendment Under Fire: America’s Radicals, Congress, and the Courts. New York, Routledge, 2017.

Chance, William. “…The Best of Educations: Reforming America’s Public Schools in the 1980’s.” Chicago, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 1986.

Choate, Robert A. “Music in American Society: the MENC Tanglewood Symposium Project.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 53, no. 7, 1967, pp. 38-40.

Choate, Robert A. Documentary Report of the Tanglewood Symposium. Bordentown, Alliance for Arts Education, 1967.

Chybowski, Julia J. Developing American Taste: A Cultural History of the Early Twentieth- Century Music Appreciation Movement, The University of Wisconsin - Madison, Ann Arbor, 2008, ProQuest, http://proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/docview/304449313?accountid=9783.

Coffman, Lotus. “The New Education.” Music Supervisors’ Journal Vol. 11 No. 3, 1925. p. 72.

Conley, David T. "The Common Core State Standards: Insight into Their Development and Purpose." Council of Chief State School Officers, 2014, https://www.inflexion.org/ccss-development-and-purpose/. Accessed Aug. 21, 2017.

Cremin, Lawrence A. “The Revolution in American Secondary Education, 1893-1918.” Teachers College Record Volume 56 Number 6, 1955, p. 295-308 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 4696, Date Accessed: 7/23/2012

Cuban, Larry and Hollis. L Caswell. “The Great Reappraisal of Public Education,: The 1952 Charles P. Steinmetz Memorial Lecture.” American Journal of Education. Vol. 110 No. 1, 2003. 200

Department of the Interior. “Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. A Report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education.” Appointed by the National Education Association. Bulletin 1918, No. 35. Bureau of Education, Department of the Interior, Washington Govt. Printing Office, 1918. pp. 7-9.

DuShane, Donald. “A Challenge to the Teaching Profession.” National Education Association of the United States Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Annual Meeting. Washington D.C., 1941.

Dykema, Peter W. “Recent Developments in Music Testing Material.” Music Supervisors' Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, 1927, pp. 59–64.

Earhart, Will and Osbourne McConathy. Music in Secondary Schools. Bulletin 1917, No. 49. Washington D.C., Washington Govt. Printing office, 1918. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540970.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2015.

Educational Council. “A Standard Course in Music.” Music Supervisors’ Journal Vol. 7 No. 5, 1921 p. 12.

Educational Council. “A Standard Course in Music.” Music Supervisors Journal, vol. 7, no. 5, 1921, pp. 10-24.

Farnsworth, Charles. “The Educational Council.” Music Supervisors Journal, Vol 8 No. 1, 1922. p. 24.

Foster, Stuart J. “Red Alert!!: The National Education Association Confronts the “Red Scare” in American Public Schools, 1947-1955.” Education and Culture, vol. 14, no. 2, 1997, pp. 1-16.

Foster, Stuart J. and O.L. Davis Jr. “Conservative Battles for Public Education within America’s Culture Wars: poignant lessons for today from the red scare of the 1950s.” London Review of Education, vol. 2 no. 2, 2004, pp. 123-135.

Gehrkens, Karl. An Introduction to School Music Teaching. Boston, C.C. Birchard, 1919. P. 5

Gherkens, Karl W. “The Evolution of Public School Music in the United States: The Twentieth Century: A Singing Revival.” Music Supervisors Journal vol. 10 No.3, 1924. pp. 8, 10, 12.

Ginsberg, Rick. “Education Reform Reports of Historical Significance.” Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd ed., edited by James W. Guthrie New York, Macmillan, 2003.

201

Goodlad, John. A Place Called School. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1984.

Guidance on Standards, Assessments, and Accountability, U.S. Department of Education, 2 Apr. 2009 https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/standardsassessment/guidance_pg5.ht ml. Accessed, September 16, 2017.

Hall, Stanley G. “The Ideal School as Based on Child Study.” National Education Association Journal of Addresses and Proceedings. Washington, D.C., 1901. pp. 475-82, 488.

Hall, Stanley G. The contents of children’s minds when entering school. New York, E.L. Kellogg, 1893.

Heller, George N. and Bruce D. Wilson. “Historical Research.” Handbook of Research in Music Teaching and Learning, ed. Richard Colwell. New York, Schirmer books, 1992. P. 102.

Hockett, Homer C. The Critical Method in Historical Research and Writing. New York, Macmillian, 1955.

Hubbard, David. This Happened in Pasadena. New York: Macmillan Company, 1951.

Humphreys, Jere T. “Applications of Science: The Age of Standardization and Efficiency in Music Education:” The Bulletin of Historical Research in Music Education. Vol. 9, no. 1, 1988, pp. 1–22.

Jerald, D. Craig. “Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World Class Education.” National Governors Association, Washington, D.C. 2008.

John, Robert W. “Nineteenth Century Graded vocal Series.” Journal of Research in Music Education, vol. 2, no.2, 1954, pp. 103-118.

Jorgensen, Estelle. “Justifying Music Instruction in American Public Schools: An Historical Perspective.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 120, 1994, pp.17-31.

Jorgensen, Estelle. “William Channing Woodbridge’s Lecture, ‘On Vocal Music as a Branch of Common Education’, revisited. www.usr.rider.edu/`vrme/v14n1/vision/woodbridge.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2010, p. 10

202

Kaminsky, James S. “A Pre-History of Educational Philosophy in the United States 1861- 1914.” Howard Educational Review Vol. 62, No. 2, 1992.

Kandel, I. L. The Thirty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part II Music Education. Bloomington, Public School Publishing Company, 1937. 367-368

Kennedy, John F. “Statement by the President Establishing the Advisory Council on the Arts.” Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9275. Accessed August 8, 2017.

Klein, Allyson. “Issues A-Z No Child Left Behind: An Overview.” Education Week. April 10, 2015. Accessed Aug. 21, 2017 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview- definition-summary.html/

Kliebard, Herbert M. The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893-1958.3rd edition. New York, Rutledge, 2004.

Knuth, William E. “For the Advancement of Music Education. A Symposium by the Recently Elected Presidents of the MENC Divisions.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 36, no. 1, 1949, pp. 28-35.

Lawler, Vanett. “Preparing for the Years Ahead: A Report to the Membership of the Music Educators National Conference, Part One” Music Educators Journal, vol. 44, no. 3, 1958, pp. 20-23.

Lawler, Vanett. “The St. Louis Program Reviewed.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 36, no. 5, 1950, pp. 16-59.

Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1961.

LeBlanc, Albert. “Nation at Risk: Opportunities within the Essentials Report.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 70, no. 1, 1983, pp. 29–31.

Lehman, Paul. “Dissertation Questions.” Received by author, 27 Aug. 2017.

Lehman, Paul. “Lehman Makes Music’s Case on Capitol Hill.” Music Educators Journal. vol. 70, no. 9, 1984, pp. 64-67.

Lehman, Paul. “Professional Notes: Reforming Education Reform.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 101, no. 3, 2015, pp. 22-32. 203

Lehman, Paul. “The Power of the National Standards.” Performing with Understanding: The Challenge of the National Standards for Music Education, edited by Bennett J. Reimer, Reston, MENC, 2000.

Letter from R.V. Morgan to Osbourne McConathy, March 25, 1942.

Lewis, Mildred S., et al “Retrospective, Perspective, Prospective.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 26, no 6, 1940, pp 28-30.

Livingston, Carolyn. “MENC and Music Education: 1933-1957 Survival and Growth through a Challenging Era.” Journal of Historical Research in Music Education, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2007, pp. 111-126

Lowell, Lawrence, editor. Music National Conference Constitution and By-Laws. London, Peerage Limited, 1914, http://archive.org/stream/musicnationalcon005238mbp/musicnationalcon0052 38mbp_djvu.txt. Accessed July 1, 2012.

Mahlmann, John. National Standards for Arts Education: What Every Young American Should Know and Be Able to Do in the Arts. US Department of Education. Washington D.C., 1994. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED365622.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2017.

Marguerite V. Hood. “Music Education Source Book Number Two.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 41 No. 6, 1955, pp. 11-11.

Mark, Michael L. and Charles L. Gary. A History of American Music Education. Lanham, Rowan and Littlefield, 2007.

Mark, Michael L. Music Education: Source Readings from Ancient Greece to Today. London, Routledge, 2013.

McLaughlin, John T. Towards a New Era in Arts Education. American Council for the Arts. New York, 1988.

MENC, Committee on Standards. The School Music Program: Description and Standards. Reston, MENC, 1976.

MENC, Committee on Standards. The School Music Program: Descriptions and Standards. Reston, MENC, 1986.

204

MENC. “Report of Resolutions Committee.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 26, no. 6, 1940, pp. 27-27.

MENC. Yearbook of the MENC, Twenty-ninth Year, 1936. Chicago, MENC, 1936. https://archive.org/stream/yearbookofthemus007197mbp/yearbookofthemus0 07197mbp_djvu.txt. Accessed, August 5, 2016.

“MENC forms Two Commissions.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 57, no. 8, 1971, pp. 47- 48.

Michael Mark. “A Historical Interpretation of Aesthetic Education.” Journal of Aesthetic Education. vol 33, no. 4, 1999, pp. 7-15

Michael Mark. “Music Education and the national standards: A historical review.” The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, Vol 6, no. 2, 1995, pp. 34-43. Michael, Richard B. “The American Institute of Instruction.” History of Education Journal vol. 3, no. 1, 1951, pp. 27-32.

Miessner, Otto. “Music for Every Child.” Music Supervisors’ Journal, vol. 10, no. 5, 1924, p. 11-61.

Miller, Thomas W. “The Influence of Progressivism on Music Education, 1917- 1947.” Journal of Research in Music Education, vol. 14, no. 1, 1966, pp. 3–16.

Mirel, Jeffery and David Angus. “High Standards for All? The Struggle for Equality in the American High School Curriculum, 1890-1990.” American Educator, Summer 1994. http://mtprof.msun.edu/Win1995/Mirel.html . Accessed July 23, 2012.

Mirel, Jeffery. “The Traditional High School.” Education Next Vol. 6, No. 1, 2006. Molnar, John W. “Changing Aspects of American Culture as Reflected in the MENC.” Journal of Research in Music Education, vol. 7, no. 2, 1959, pp. 174– 184.

Mursell, James L. “Music Education at the Crossroads.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 37 No. 4, 1951.

Mursell, James L. “Our Widening Horizon.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 30 No. 5 1944.

Mursell, James L. “The Challenge to Music Education.” Music Educators Journal Vol. 36 No. 5, 1950.

“Music in American Education.” Music Educators Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, 1951, pp. 34-36.

205

National Arts Standards. National Core Arts Standards. http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/customize- handbook?bundle_name%5B6%5D=6&bundle_name%5B7%5D=7&ss_grade_lev el%5B3%5D=3&ss_grade_level%5B12%5D=12&ss_grade_level%5B13%5D=13&ss _grade_level%5B14%5D=14&include%5Beu%2Feq%5D=eu%2Feq&include%5Bpv %5D=pv. Accessed, Oct. 1, 2017.

National Arts Standards. National Core Arts Standards: A Conceptual Framework for Learning, http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/sites/default/files/NCCAS%20%20Concep tual%20Framework_4.pdf. Accessed August 12, 2017.

National Arts Standards. National Core Arts Standards: A Conceptual Framework for Arts Learning. NCAAS: http://nccas.wikispaces.com/file/view/Framework%2005%2022- 14.pdf/513758852/Framework%2005%2022-14.pdf, Accessed Aug. 21, 2017.

National Arts Standards. The Status of Arts Standards Revision in the United States since 2014. http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/sites/default/files/The%20Status%20of% 20Arts%20Standards%20Revisions%20in%20the%20United%20States%20Since% 202014%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed July 29, 2017.

National Association for Music Education. 2014 Music Standards. https://.org/wp- content/files/2014/11/2014-Music-Standards-Ensemble-Strand.pdf. Accessed Aug. 17, 2017.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C., US Dept. of Education, 1983.

National Council on Education Standards and Testing. Raising Standards for American Education. A report to Congress, the Secretary of Education, the National Education Goals Panel and the American People. Washington D.C., US Dept of Education, 1992.

National Education Association. Report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. Addresses and Proceedings of the Fifty-Ninth Annual Meeting held at Des Moines, Iowa, July 3-8, 1921. Volume LIX. Washington D.C., National Education Association, 1921, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED153896.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2016.

206

National Education Association. The National Commission for the Defense of Democracy Through Education. Report of an Investigation Houston, Texas: The Study of Factors Related to Educational Unrest in a Large School System. NEA. Washington D.C., 1954

National Research Council of Music Education. “A Survey of Tests and Measurements.” Music Supervisors' Journal, vol. 13, no. 5, 1927, pp. 17–31.

National Science Foundation. The Year of the Earth Satellites: The Status of Science and Education in the United States. Washington D.C., NSF, 1958, https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1958/annualreports/ar_1958_sec2.pdf. Accessed Aug. 2, 2017.

Palisca, Claude, and V. “Music in Our Schools: A Search for Improvement. Report of the Yale Seminar on Music Education. Bulletin, 1964, No. 28. OE-33033.” Office of Education, US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare., 30 Nov. 1963

Phelps, Roger. “Historical Research: Concepts and Techniques.” in A Guide to Research in Music Education, edited by Pheps, Rodger P., Ronald H. Sadoff, Edward C. Warburton, and Lawerence Ferrara. Lanham, Scarecrow Press, 2005.

Pitts, Lilla Belle. “Purposes and Goals of Music Education in 1958. Report for the MENC Study Committee on Purposes and goals of Music Education.” Music Educators Journal. Vol. 44 No. 5, 1958, pp.19-21.

Pitts, Lilla Belle. “Widening Horizons for Music Education.” Music Educators Journal Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 17-55

“Pledge and Obligation.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 37, no. 5, 1951, pp. 15-16.

Pontiff, Elizabeth. “We Had Made Our Job a Profession: MENC’s First 100 years.” Teaching Music Vol. 15 No. 2, 2007, p.30.

Ravitch, Diane. “American Traditions of Education.” A Primer on American Schools, edited by Terry M. Moe, Hoover Institution Press, 2001, P. 8.

Ravitch, Diane. National Standards in American Education: A Citizen’s Guide. Brookings Institution, 1996.

207

Regelski, Thomas. “Implications of Aesthetic versus Praxial Philosophies of Music for Curriculum and Theory in Music Education.” Didacta Vana, vol. 8 no. 1, 2003, pp. 63-92. http://maydaygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Regelski- Implications.pdf. Accessed Dec. 11, 2009.

“Report of the Sixth Annual Meeting.” College Music Symposium, vol. 4, 1964, pp. 103– 132.

Shuler, Scott C., et al. “The New National Standards for Music Education.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 101, no. 1, 2014, pp. 41-49.

Skaife, Robert A. An Evaluation of the Program of the National Commission for the Defense of Democracy through Education, University of Maryland, College Park, Ann Arbor, 1951, ProQuest, http://proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/docview/1680273065?accountid=9783.

Smith, Claude B., et al. “The Forward March Has Begun.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 33, no. 6, 1947, pp. 29–33.

Spencer, Herbert. “The Origins and functions of music.” Fraser’s Magazine, Vol 56., 1857, pp 396-408. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=33 6&chapter=12353&layout=html&Itemid=27. Accessed May 1, 2012.

Spring, Joel H. Conflicts of Interest: The Politics of American Education, 3rd ed. New York, Longman, 1998.

Straub, Lehman, and Bennett Reimer, Et. Al. “Report to the MENC National Executive Board.” October 2007. http://www.menc.org/resources/view/october-2007- report-of-the-menc-task-force-on-national-standards . Accessed May 9, 2012.

Sur, William R. “Outline of a Program for Music Education.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, 1951, pp. 53-54.

“The Child’s Bill of Rights.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 36, no. 5, 1950, pp.15-15.

“The MENC Action Schedule.” Music Educators Journal, vol. 33, no. 6, 1947, pp. 28-28.

“The Music Curriculum of the Elementary School.” Music Educators Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4 March 1946, pp. 32-33.

208

Thomas B. and David L. Kirp. “Education Reform in the 1980s: Lessons from the States.” Phi Delta Kappa International, vol. 70, no. 7, 1989, pp. 504-511

Thomas C. Hunt. “National Defense Education Act.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/National-Defense-Education-Act. Accessed July 8, 2017.

Tom Byrnes. “The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto Mortimer Adler.” Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 34, no. 4, 1983, pp. 61-62.

Truman, Harry S. “299- Address before the midcentury Whitehouse conference on children and youth.” Dec. 5, 1950. https://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=989&st=white+hou se+conference&st1=. Accessed Aug. 1, 2017.

U.S. Office of Education. The Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1955-56 (Washington, D.C., Dept. of Education, 1956.

United States Senate. Sputnik Spurs Passage of the National Defense Education Act. Senate Historical Office, 4 Oct. 1957, https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Sputnik_Spurs_Passage_ of_National_Defense_Education_Act.htm. Accessed July 8, 2017.

US Department of Education. “The Nation Responds: Recent Efforts to Improve Education.” Washington, D.C., Dept. of Education, 1984.

US Dept. of Ed. “Public Law print of PL 107-110.” No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2017.

Vinovskis, Maris A. “The Road to Charlottesville: The 1989 Education Summit.” National Education Goals Panel. Collingdale, Diane Publishing, 1999. https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/negp/reports/negp30.pdf, Accessed August 14, 2017.

Walker, Edith V. and Mary Adams. “The Midcentury White House Conference on Youth and Children.” Pi Lambda Theta Journal. Vol. 29 No. 3, 1951, pp.166-169.

209

Warren, Fred A. A History of the Music Education Research Council and The 'journal Of Research In Music Education' Of The Music Educators National Conference, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1966, ProQuest, http://proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/docview/302209395?accountid=9783.

Weaver, Paul J., editor. Journal of Proceedings of the Music Supervisors National Conference. Durham, Seeman Printery, 1927, https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.151737/2015.151737.Music- Supervisors-National-Conference-1927#page/n9/mode/2up. Accessed 22 Mar. 2017.

Weiss, Jeffrey. “Texas Common Core Solution in Search of a Problem.” The Dallas Morning News. Sept. 19, 2014. Accessed Oct. 14, 2017. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2014/09/19/texas-common-core- solution-in-search-of-a-problem

Werner, Robert J. “A Review of the 1963 Yale Seminar.” College Music Symposium, vol. 49/50, 2009, pp. 101-104.

Whipple, Guy M. The Thirty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part II Music Education. Bloomington, Public School Publishing Company, 1936.

“Widening Horizons for Music Education.” Music Educators Journal, Vol, 30, no. 3, 1944, pp. 13-38.

Willis, Benjamin C. “Music in General: The Stake of Music in Education.” Music in American Education. A Compendium of Data, Opinions, and Recommendations Compiled from the Reports of Investigations, Studies, and Discussions Conducted by the Music in American Education Committees of the MENC during the Period 1951-54, with Which is Included Selected Material from Other Sources, 1955.

Work, Frederick J. “What We May Expect from Tests and Measurements in Music Education?” Music Supervisors Journal, Vol. 14, no. 1, 1927, pp. 78–80.

210

Appendix A: Course of Study by Years

FIRST YEAR AIMS

(a) To give every child the use of his singing voice and pleasure in song as a means of expression. (b) To cultivate the power of careful, sensitive aural attention. (c) To provide the pupils through accompaniments to some of their songs and the hearing of much good music, an experience richer than that afforded by their own singing. (d) To give every child enjoyment of music as something heard as well as some-thing expressed. (Appreciation of music).

MATERIAL (a) Rote-song books in the hands of the teacher. (b) A keyboard instrument for playing accompaniments (c) A pitch pipe; also a staff-liner of the teacher so wishes. (d) A phonograph, with at least 20 records of good music.

PROCEDURE (a) Singing songs by rote, using light head tones ordinarily not exceeding the range of the treble staff. (b) Imitative exercises for curing so-called monotones. (c) Singing songs entire, or phrase by phrase, individually. (To include all members of the class). (d) Occasional use of accompaniments on well learned rote-songs. (e) Directing aural attention to beauty of tone in singing and to simple aspects of music as observed in rote-songs and in music heard, such as repetitions and recurrence of phrases, and repeated rhythms. (f) The teaching of syllables as desired.

ATTAINMENTS (a) Ability to sing pleasingly a repertory of 30 to 40 rote-songs appropriate to the grade, including one stanza of "America." (b) The reduction of the number of "monotones" to 10 per cent or less of the total number of pupils. (c) Ability of 90 per cent of the pupils to sing individually, freely, correctly, and without harmful vocal habits, some 5 of the songs sung by the class as a whole. (d) Preference on the part of the children for good tones rather than bad, and the disposition to love the best of the music they have sung or heard.

211

SECOND YEAR AIMS (a) The aims of the First Year again, namely: continued curing of "monotones" (to give every child the use of his singing voice); development of song-singing; enrichment and extension of song-repertory; further development of aural power; farther development of appreciation, including pleasurable attention to the expressive features of song and the beauties of musical structure. (b) To continue the development of the power to recognize aurally simple phrase groups of tones and the feeling for simplest rhythms. The introduction of the staff may occur as early as the middle of the first year or as late as the be-ginning of the third year depending upon the order of procedure.

MATERIAL

(a) Rote-song books in the hands of the teacher. (b) Books containing easy rote-songs (some of which may be in minor keys) and the simplest melodies in the usual nine major keys to be used in the development of sight- singing, if begun; the latter group, at least, to be printed in large type and open distribution on the page; and both groups to be in books that are placed in the hands of the children. (c) Some large display form of material that is to be studied; either in some chart form or on blackboard. (d) A pitch-pipe and a staff-liner. (e) A keyboard instrument for playing accompaniments. (f) A phonograph and some 25 records of good music.

PROCEDURE

(a) Singing rote-songs for pleasurable musical experience. (b) Imitative exercises for curing so-called monotones. (c) The use of the staff in practicing or preparing for sight-singing. (d) Frequent practice in individual singing. (e) Ear-training for the development of tonal and rhythmic thinking. (f) Occasional use of accompaniments to songs previously learned. (g) Learning to listen to good compositions for the sheer joy and charm of their beauty. Also to listen to the salient features of the imitative or descriptive phases involved; and to the simple arrangement of recurring phrases or "tunes" and rhythmic patterns.

ATTAINMENTS

(a) Ability to sing correctly and pleasingly 40 to 60 new songs, 20 of which are to be memorized and which shall include two stanzas of "America." It is also suggested that some of the songs of the first year be kept in repertory. (b) Ability of 90 per cent of the pupils to sing individually, freely, correctly, and without harmful vocal habits 6 or 8 of the songs sung by the class as a whole.

212

(c) Not more than 5 per cent of the entire class to be "monotones" at end of year. The other pupils to sing without bad vocal habits, with musical enjoyment, and with good musical effect. (d) Ability by end of year (or by the middle of the following year, according to procedure) to sing at sight, with syllables, easy melodies in the usual nine major keys, containing notes and rests one, two, three and four beats in length, and employing diatonic tones in stepwise progressions and with simple skips. (f) Ability to recognize some 5 or 6 good compositions on hearing the first few measures of each; to follow and recognize a recurrent theme in a new song or new piece of very simple structure; and a tendency to prefer compositions that have real musical merit and charm to those that are weak or common.

THIRD YEAR AIMS (a) Continued correction of "monotones"; development of free and beautiful singing of songs; development of the song-repertory along lines appropriate to the taste and expanding powers of the children; development of aural power and extension of it to new features; further development of appreciation, particularly in the direction of pleasurable attention to the expressive and structural beauties of music. (b) Development of an elementary degree of power and skill in independent sight- singing.

MATERIAL

(a) Books of music in the hands of the pupils; these books to contain three types of musical material, namely: (1) Rote-songs of appropriate interest and elaborateness; (2) Songs that may be taught partially by rote and partially by reading; (3) Easier material for sight-singing. All of this material, with the possible exception of the first group, should be printed in large type and open distribution upon the page. (b) Blank music paper or music writing books ruled with a wide staff, in the hands of the pupils. (c) A keyboard instrument. (d) A pitch-pipe and staff-liner. (e) A phonograph and 25 good records. PROCEDURE

(a) Singing rote-songs for pleasurable musical experience. (b) Systematic practice in sight-singing. (c) Ear-training for the development of tonal and rhythmic thinking. (d) Individual song-singing and sight-singing; each child to sing individually at least once a week. (e) Liberal use of a keyboard instrument for illustrative purposes and accompaniments, but not for leading.

213

(f) Listening to good musical compositions as largely unanalyzed musical experience; observation or analysis to be largely in connection with the songs sung, but also in some degree with the larger compositions heard; and to consist of features of structure or design, such as observing recurrences of themes, sequences, and variations on them, etc.; and to be pursued in the spirit of recognizing the beauty and charm of such features of musical design.

ATTAINMENTS

(a) Ability to sing correctly and pleasingly 40 to 60 new songs, at least 10 of which shall be memorized, and which shall include the four stanzas of "America." It is also suggested that some of the song of the preceding years be kept in repertory. (b) Ability of 90 per cent of the pupils to sing individually, freely, correctly, and without harmful vocal habits, 8 or 10 of the songs sung by the class as a whole. (c) The "monotone" to be practically eliminated. Individual attention should be given to special cases. (d) Ability by end of year to sing at sight, by syllables, easy melodies in any of the usual nine major keys; these melodies containing stepwise progressions and skips of 3ds, 4ths, 5ths, 6ths, and 8ths and employing at least notes and rests one, two, three, or four beats in length, and two notes to the beat; also knowledge of some twelve of the more familiar signs and terms used in connection with staff notation. (e) Ability of at least 25 per cent of the pupils to sing as well individually, at sight, as the class can sing as a whole. (f) Power that enables the pupils to recognize by sound that which they know by sight, and vice versa; i.e., "see with the ears and hear with the eyes." - Luther Whiting Mason. (g) Increased power to attend to, and give account of, the salient points of design in the music introduced, and increased sympathy for, and pleasure in, those factors that make for charm of musical design and expressive quality; also, ability to recognize and identify some 8 or 10 standard musical compositions when the first few measures of each are played.

FOURTH YEAR AIMS

I. Almost all the general aims appropriate and desirable in both early and later years in a system of instruction in music in public schools have now been assembled. Once more they may be summarized: (a) To develop pleasure in song as a means of expression. (b) To secure free and correct use of the voice in singing. (c) To develop musical qualities of performance of songs. (d) To develop a conception of music as something to be heard as well as something to be expressed. (e) Progressive development of power to use the printed language of music.

214

(f) Progressive extension of musical experience beyond that provided by the singing of the children. (g) Continuous development of power of appreciation by development of aural power, guided in the direction of attention to the elements of the beautiful in music. II. Specific aims of the Fourth Year are as follows: (a) Introductory steps in two-part singing. (b) Extension of knowledge of the tonal and rhythmic material of music appropriate to Fourth Year.

MATERIAL

(a) Books of music in the hands of the pupils, these books to contain a very large number of songs of high musical merit, a few of the more elaborate of which may be learned by rote. (b) Blank music paper, or music writing books, in the hands of the pupils. (c) A keyboard instrument, pitch-pipe and staff-liner. (d) A phonograph and at least 25 good records.

PROCEDURE

(a) Singing repertory songs for pleasurable musical expression. (b) Individual singing to be employed as a means of strengthening individual capability. (c) Ear-training for the further development of tonal and rhythmic thinking involving both old and new problems. (d) The introduction of two-part singing to be by "chording" in two parts on sustained tones, at intervals chiefly of the 3rd or 6th, or by rounds; both first and second parts to contain both boys and girls; the voices of all to be treated as equal. (e) Liberal use of a keyboard instrument in accompaniments and for purposes of explanation and illustration, but not for leading unfamiliar music. (f) Observing the structure of songs sung, and listening to and giving account of salient points in the structure of standard musical compositions, with a view to developing appreciation of the beauties of tonal design.

ATTAINMENTS

(a) Continued development of song-singing and extension of repertory; this to include the first stanza of "The Star-Spangled Banner. (b) Ability of 90 per cent of the pupils to sing individually, freely, correctly, and without harmful vocal habits, not less than 10 of the songs sung by the class as a whole. (c) Power and skill to sing at sight music appropriate to this year. (d) Ability of at least 30 per cent of the pupils to sing individually at sight the material which the class can read as a whole. (e) Power that enables the pupils to know by sound that which they know by sight and vice versa.

215

(f) Increased capacity to observe the characteristic features of songs sung, and music heard, such as recurrences of themes, salient features of interest, and expressive quality; these characteristics to be mentioned in so far as they strike the attention because of the pleasure they give the hearer. Also, ability to recognize, and write the names of some 20 standard compositions from hearing the first few measures of each.

FIFTH YEAR AIMS I. General: (a) To continue development of free and beautiful singing of songs. (b) To acquire an increasingly wide musical experience. (c) To develop increasing power of eye and ear in correlation. (d) To develop power to listen for musical beauty as well as for musical knowledge. (e) To develop increased power to sing at sight. II. Special: (f) To establish two-part singing. (g) To develop increasing practical knowledge of the tones of the Chromatic Scale and power to use them. (h) Extension of knowledge of the tonal and rhythmic material of music appropriate to Fifth Year. (i) To develop a fair degree of power to sing unison songs at sight with words, and an elementary degree of power to sing two part songs at sight with words.

MATERIAL

(a) Books of music in the hands of the pupils, these to contain unison and two-part songs for treble voices. (b) Blank music writing paper or music writing books in the hands of the pupils. (c) A keyboard instrument. (d) Pitch-pipe and staff-liner. (e) Phonograph and library of records of good music.

PROCEDURE

(a) Singing of songs for pleasurable musical expression, some of which should be retained in the permanent repertory. (b) Individual singing to be employed as a means of confirming and establishing individual capability. (c) Ear-training for the further development of tonal and rhythmic thinking involving both old and new problems. (d) In two-part singing, the pupils to be divided indiscriminately as to sex, both girls’ and boys' voices being treated as equal. (An occasional irregular voice may need to be treated as an exception.) Assignments of vocal parts to groups to be reversed from song to song or from week to week, to give proper practice to the full vocal range of each pupil, and to develop in each individual independence in singing the lower part; the alto to be taken up

216

first on new songs that require practice on the parts separately; and to be sung with the lightness of voice and movement characteristic of soprano. Systematic effort to be made to develop sight-singing of two parts simultaneously. (e) Systematic attention to be given to singing words at sight, when the songs contain nothing but quite familiar technical features. (f) Liberal use of a keyboard instrument for accompaniments and many purposes of illustration and explanation. (g) Observation and analysis of salient features of design in music sung and in standard musical compositions heard: such as persistent reiteration of a motive, recurrences of themes, sequential treatment and imaginative changes, (as in "Morning Mood" or "Asa's Death" from Grieg's Peer Gynt Music), or the divisions of the song-forms (as in songs sung or in the Pilgrims' Chorus from Tannhauser).

ATTAINMENTS

(a) Continued development of song-singing and extension of repertory; this to include the remaining stanzas of "The Star-Spangled Banner". (b) Ability of 90 per cent of pupils to sing individually, freely, correctly and without harmful vocal habits not less than 10 of the songs sung by the class as a whole. (c) Power and skill to sing at sight music appropriate to this year. (d) Ability of at least 30 per cent of the class to sing individually at sight the material which the class can sing as a whole. (e) Power that enables the pupils to know by sound that which they know by sight, and vice versa. (f) Increased capacity to observe the characteristic features of songs sung and music heard, such as recurrences of themes, salient features of interest, and expressive quality; these characteristics to be mentioned in so far as they strike the attention because of the pleasure they give the hearer. Also, ability to recognize and write the names of some 20 standard compositions from hearing the first few measures of each.

SIXTH YEAR AIMS I. General Aims the same as Fifth Year. II. Special: (a) The Special Aims of Fifth Year continued and extended. (b) To begin the development of three-part, treble-voice singing. (c) To develop ability to deal practically with the minor mode.

MATERIAL

(a) Books of music in the hands of the pupils; these to contain unison and two-part, treble-voice material; and also some material for three parts, treble voices, and some more elaborate unison songs. (b) Blank music paper or music writing books in the hands of the pupils. (c) A keyboard instrument.

217

(d) A pitch-pipe and staff-liner. (e) A phonograph and library of records of good music.

PROCEDURE

(a) Singing of songs for pleasurable musical expression, some of which should be retained in the permanent repertory. (b) Individual singing to be employed as a means of confirming and establishing individual capability. (c) Ear-training for the further development of tonal and rhythmic thinking involving both old and new problems. (d) Division into two or three voice-parts to be without regard to sex, each part containing some boys and some girls. Assignments of children to vocal parts to be shifted from song to song or from week to week as voices permit. (e) Practice in the use of the accidentals and their restoring signs, and in building scales. (f) Three-part singing introduced, through the development of the harmonic sense, using triads if desired. (g) Systematic attention to be given to singing words at sight when the songs contain nothing but quite familiar technical features. (h) Two-part and three-part songs to be undertaken at the outset with all parts simultaneously, when practicable. (i) Liberal use of a keyboard instrument for accompaniments and many purposes of illustration and explanation. (j) Observation of the elements of interest and charm of music sung and heard to be directed to design and imaginative treatment of thematic material, as manifest in motivation, repetitions, recurrences, unity and contrast of part with part (as in the song- forms or rondo) etc.

ATTAINMENTS

(a) Ability to sing well, with enjoyment at least 30 unison, two-part, and three-part songs, some of which shall be memorized. (b) Ability of 90 per cent of pupils to sing individually, freely, correctly and without harmful vocal habits not less than 10 of the songs sung by the class as a whole. (c) Ability to sing at sight, using words, a unison song of hymn-tune grade; or using syllables, a two-part song of hymn-tune grade, and the easiest three-part songs; these to be in any key; to include any of the measures and rhythms in ordinary use; to contain any accidental signs and tones easily introduced; and in general to be of the grade of folksongs such as "The Minstrel Boy." Also knowledge of the major and minor keys and their signatures. (d) Ability of at least 30 per cent of the pupils to sing individually at sight music sung by the class as a whole. (f) Ability to appreciate the charm of design in songs sung; to give an account of the salient features of structure in a standard composition, after a few hearings of it; to

218

identify at least the Three-part Song Form from hearing; to recognize and to give titles and composers of not less than 20 standard compositions studied during the year.

SEVENTH AND EIGHTH YEARS AIMS

I. General Aims of earlier years continued. II. Specific Aims. (a) To develop concerted singing in the direction of mass chorus practice as well as to continue the usual class-room sight-singing and part-singing. (b) To recognize the birth of new affective (emotional) states in the pupils, due to their awakening sense of the relationships of human life and the emotional aspects of these relationships; and to utilize the best of these qualities of feeling as agencies toward the reinforcement and upbuilding of fine and strong elements of character. (c) To articulate more closely for the pupils, individually and collectively, the musical interests and activities of the school with those of their homes and their community. (d) To recognize and encourage the special interest that pupils of this age have in the mechanism, technique and use of musical instruments. (e) To recognize and encourage special individual musical capabilities, as a feature of an avocational as well as a vocational stage of development. (f) To pay special attention to the diverging needs of the voices of the pupils. (g) To strengthen and extend technical knowledge and capability with reference to tonal and rhythmic elements and features of staff-notation and sight-singing. (h) To add to the appreciation of the formal elements in music an appreciation of the moods characteristic of romantic and modern music.

MATERIAL

(a) Ample material suitable for the various needs of the pupil. (b) Blank music writing paper or music writing books in the hands of the pupils. (c) A keyboard instrument. (d) A phonograph and an adequate library of good music.

PROCEDURE

(a) Singing of repertory songs, as before, for the sake of musical enjoyment. (b) Occasional assembling of large groups of 7th or 8th year or 7th and 8th year pupils for chorus practice and social singing. (c) Continued practice in sight-singing. (d) Individual singing to be retained as a means of developing greater individual capability and independence. (e) Close attention to individual vocal ranges and characteristics, involving frequent examinations of all voices individually; acquisition of exact knowledge of the capabilities of each individual's voice; careful treatment of changing voices, and careful part- assignment of all voices.

219

(f) Much use of a keyboard instrument for accompaniments and purposes of illustration, explanation, and for recitals. (g) In easy part-songs all parts to be attempted simultaneously. Separate parts to be practiced only when necessary. (h) Singing words at sight. Syllables to be used only when necessary. (i) Comment and discussion on the aspects of beauty and expression that awakened interest in the compositions sung or listened to, including also attention to their origin, textual meaning, and style, for the purpose of developing an intelligent musical taste and judgment. (j) Some time to be given to recitals by pupils and artists and to the development of vocal and orchestral ensemble practice under school auspices.

ATTAINMENTS

(a) Ability to sing well, with enjoyment, a repertory of 25 to 35 songs of musical, literary, community, national or other worthy interest. (b) Ability to sing at sight part-songs of the grade of a very simple hymn. (d) Knowledge of all essential facts of elementary theory sufficient to enable 75 per cent of the students to give a correct explanation of any notational features contained in the pieces of average difficulty in the standard books of music for the 7th and 8th years. (f) Further progress in recognition of the relations, agreements, dependencies of tones and tonal groups, that give to music its strength and interest; pleasure in good music.

220

Appendix B: Tanglewood Declaration

The intensive evaluation of the role of music in American society and education provided by the Tanglewood Symposium of philosophers, educators, scientists, labor leaders, philanthropists, social scientists, theologians, industrialists, representatives of government and foundations, music educators and other musicians led to this declaration:

We believe that education must have as major goals the art of living, the building of personal identity, and nurturing creativity. Since the study of music can contribute to these ends, we now call for music to be placed in the core of the school curriculum.

The arts afford a continuity with the aesthetic tradition in man’s history. Music and other fine arts, largely non-verbal in nature, reach close to the social, psychological, and physiological roots of man in his search for identity and self-realization.

Educators must accept the responsibility for developing opportunities which meet man’s individual needs and the needs of a society plagued by the consequences of changing values, alienation, hostility between generations, racial and international tensions, and the challenges of a new leisure.

Music educators at Tanglewood agreed on the following:

1. Music serves best when its integrity as an art is maintained. 2. Music of all periods, styles, forms, and cultures belongs in the curriculum. The musical repertory should be expanded to involve music of our time in its rich variety, including currently popular teenage music and avant-garde music, American folk music, and the music of other cultures. 3. Schools and colleges should provide adequate time for music in programs ranging from preschool through adult or continuing education. 4. Instruction in the arts should be a general and important part of education in the senior high school. 5. Developments in educational technology, educational television, programmed instruction, and computer-assisted instruction should be applied to music study and research. 6. Greater emphasis should be placed on helping the individual student to fulfill his needs, goals and potentials. 7. The music education profession must contribute its skills, proficiencies, and insights toward assisting in the solution of urgent social problems as in the “inner city” or other areas with culturally deprived individuals 8. Programs of teacher education must be expanded and improved to provide music teachers who are specially equipped to teach high school courses in the history and literature of music, courses in the humanities and related arts, as well as teachers equipped to work with the very young, with adults, with the disadvantaged, and with the emotionally disturbed. 221