Goober Music Teachers

R – I’ve heard on many occasions over the years that, “not all that is important can be assessed”. I know, I’ve often been the one who has said it. I still do, and I still mean it when I say it. But this blog post is an attempt to add the caveat, “not all things that are important are academic.” And there’s the rub. Things like Beauty are important. Even essential. Aesthetics are important and essential. Breathing oxygen is important and essential. NONE of those things, however, are academic. The mistake we too often make in this country as arts educators is this: trumpeting that what we do in the arts is the all-important essential stuff that isn’t connected to academia.

Tell me again what message this sends to our communities who largely believe that the arts aren’t academic to begin with?

Check out this article on Rafe Esquith, a 59 year old elementary school teacher. His accountability standards are HIGH, but the level of engagement, love of the subject matter, allowing it to impact his students as young people – this is all evident in his classroom. There is intense imagination and self expression being fostered in his classroom. they live in the moment. It’s because he’s a good teacher. He’s not young, he’s not an arts educator, he doesn’t have the “talented” kids and he doesn’t have just those who choose to be in his class.

Why in the world do some arts educators possess the egocentric belief that they – and their subject area – are the ones who corner the market on enriching a student’s life experience? I’ve seen talented musicians just kill a classroom full of students because they are poor educators, and Math teachers who engage students creatively and imaginatively, building them up as people, getting them to see things and others in a new profound way.

The following excerpt is taken from an essay one of my students submitted to me a couple of years ago as a Senior preparing to head off to College and reflecting on her experiences in the YHS choral program. She wrote, “This approach to work has changed the way I think about every project, class and task that life throws my way. Work is no longer drudgery, but an opportunity to dedicate myself to an idea, to feel like a part of something bigger than myself. Because of this approach, I’m also not afraid (to go off to college), where I am sure the workload will be intense and I will be surrounded by people far smarter than myself. So that’s the final miracle: I have found joy in work.” Do you think this revelation occurred because of the avoidance of work???

And if you think this transformation occurred because of me, you’re missing the point (you’d also be very wrong). It’s because there is no short-cut or substitute for academic rigor… but within this, there is extraordinary opportunity for students to discover more about themselves and each other than they could ever have dreamed possible.

These deep discoveries and revelations don’t occur in the absence of academia, they can occur profoundly within – and due to – the context of academia; the peripheral impacts reach someone much more deeply when they have to earn it.

To me, the arts are core academic subjects. Sure, just like math and writing clubs, there are certainly elements of the arts that lend themselves naturally and wonderfully to co-curricular outgrowths as well, and the emphasis for those activities are not academic. No debate there at all. But at it’s fundamental basis, I believe that the arts are core and academic. So, accordingly, as a classroom music teacher, you can only choose one of two paths this year: #1) your highest priority is academic… and then through that your students fully realize expression, self expression, aesthetic connection, creativity, imaginative thought process, self esteem building, collaboration, teamwork and personal meaning as a result of YOUR reflective teaching practices, #2) your highest priority is that your students fully realize expression, self expression, aesthetic connection, creativity, imaginative thought process, self esteem building, collaboration, teamwork and personal meaning… and then if some of them happen to learn a few nuts and bolts about music and music literacy along the way, that certainly doesn’t hurt.

If your academic program gets put on the chopping block for some reason next Spring and you have been following path #1 – meaning that you have documentation which includes rigorous learning targets and ongoing assessments – contact me. If the same scenario happens but you’ve been been following path #2, don’t bother. I won’t be able to help you.

aesthetics and academia – part 1

R – The title of this post: oil and water? Democrat and Republican? Ke$ha and Beethoven? Yankees and Red Sox? Okay maybe not that far apart… Well, here’s the scoop: aesthetics is not the deemphasis of academic instruction, it’s an abject emphasis on academic instruction coupled with inspired teaching. There’s a profound difference.

I’ve heard it said by many colleagues in the visual and performing arts that we are the only subject areas that really involve aesthetics. I’ll buy that. Yes, there is an aesthetic to a number of other subject areas, but I would argue that none of them them offer this to the same degree as the visual and performing arts. So would you. I’m okay with this premise so far. But many visual and performing arts teachers also believe that this is ultimately their primary purpose. I couldn’t disagree more.

I got these definitions for aesthetics online:

1. pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the philosophy of aesthetics.
2. of or pertaining to the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty; of or relating to the science of aesthetics.
3. having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.
4. pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality.

The first three definitions align with everything I see from colleagues around the state. But want to talk more about definition #4. I have two Robert Shaw quotes to share: “I am amazed again and again how the mastery of successive minute technical details releases floods of spiritual understanding.” The director of the finest choir in this country’s history made it clear that spiritual understanding flowed from the mastery of the details (pure intellectuality), not the omission of them. Obsession over the details is obviously, in and of itself, not aesthetic (“anti-aesthetic”???). Yet that was Shaw’s foremost responsibility and concern as a teacher. He was criticized for this at first, with an article in Time magazine from January, 1952 about his Robert Shaw Chorale entitled, Too Much Perfection?. The premise being that the choir was so technically perfect that the spirit (aesthetic) was too limited as a result. But Shaw also said this: “At every instance wherein we achieve this exact balance, or that unequivocal intonation, or yea rhythmic meshing, or an absolute precision of enunciation, or an unassailable propriety of vocal color the miracle happens—the Flesh is made Word, and dwells among us. We put in muscle and blood and brains and breath—and out comes a holy spirit.”

I dare you to find a better application of aesthetics in the classroom.

Here’s my problem with many arts teachers who claim to teach aesthetics: they think it’s an either/or proposition. They would argue that teaching aesthetics is at the core of their jobs as educators, but they do so at the omission of actually teaching the building blocks… they do so at the omission of student accountability… they do so at the omission of every student having equal capacity (“but, gosh, some are just more talented!”)… they do so at the expense of academic rigor… they do so at the expense of Shaw’s “minute details”. And, frankly, to me, this all just bastardizes arts education.

So am I opposed to aesthetics? Am I opposed to the concept that at our core aesthetics is in part what makes us “essential for every child”? No. I’m opposed to the belief that educational accountability cancels out the aesthetic component of our classrooms. I’m opposed to the belief that holding students accountable for learning concrete curriculum detracts from an aesthetic experience. I’m opposed to arts educators watering down curriculum so that the concerts (the product) becomes the focus… just like I used to. I’m opposed to the belief that aesthetics cannot coexist in a profoundly academic environment.

Here’s the difference. Some believe that we are here to educate the arts by providing the aesthetic experiences, first, foremost and finally. Others believe that the arts – as an academic subject – must be held to the same standard as the other subject areas with regard to academic rigor and accountability. But doing so as a practitioner of refined, rigorous, reflective and student centered education – which creates an aesthetic opportunity for students – makes the alternative seem superficial by comparison. My effectiveness at accomplishing all this day in and day out can always be debated, and I’m not claiming to be held up as an example. At all. But I’d rather go after the good stuff this way than attempt anything less. I LOVE the quote below by Aristotle. But can you really “represent” the connection to the inner stuff without a prerequisite of fully grasping all its components first? And if YOU’RE not teaching all (all!) those components, who is?